Transcript

partnership initiative which has been incredibly welcome as a cross border all inclusive initiative and I'm really worried that we might lose some of that and would like to know exactly how we won't lose it. Okay thanks Kristina, I can see Ann Weedy from NRLW, wants to come in Anne. Thank you, I'm not sure I can answer Kristine's question, Kristina's a very very good question but you know the ambition here is that you know we have to treat the Y as a single catchment and any plans that we generate have to be cross-border we really have to acknowledge where we do have legislative differences and we need to sort of build those into the plan but the ambition you know I share that ambition that Sarah and you have for those plans to be all Y plans and not you know separate plans depending on which side of that political border you happen to be. Thanks Anne I think we could all agree we've all been working at this you know problem for what we all know it's very clear to us the river does not know that it's in Wales or is it in England it is a river so and we have to see it as that we have to treat it as a as a whole and just also to draw attention to the fact that the river is now on the board we're just waiting to fill the spot but the river Y has this place that that being a catchment of course so yeah I mean it's it's it's it's blinding the obvious that we have to overcome those obstacles to seeing the the whole catchment and working towards the whole catchment Pat. Thanks Lisa just a perhaps a prosaic kind of intervention here but to bring together all in fact all of the last few things that were said starting with Anthea's point about not wanting to rush in and you know into things so we have been working and I don't want to bang this drum too much but we've been working on a plan and we've been working on coming up with targets based on baselines for all of the species that we think are the most important for all of the farm for farm engagement criteria for water quality criteria including climate guardrails, farm income guardrails I could go on this has been crowdsourced by over 150 people and has been now brought together into a plan which is being underpinned by good mathematical modeling from three different models which covers both Wales and England so we have that in train now our intention is to deliver it by June so that we can get on with doing actions that's our current trajectory I hope that what we're going to see is support of that obviously with meaning you know we need to ensure that it all works for all parties but we have all parties behind that already so yeah I really look forward to kind of talking through that in more detail hoping that you know Defra now very engaged hopefully can help us and I'd when when well you're saying that you want to take that away my question is to where and can we make sure that it comes back to the Y catchment partnership and all the people in the room so that they understand what's going on and we make sure that the Welsh government is brought along on that journey - that's just an appeal but we yeah we are in a process and we will we were gonna keep we we didn't know when this Defra announcement was gonna be made so we were just cracking on and we want to keep cracking on and hopefully with your support and it would be I think would be very useful to get a bit more support it seems a bit crazy that we're having to crowdfund for that kind of work okay so I'm gonna move on now to number two because if we don't do that literally gonna be hit till tomorrow and then subject to consultation the environmental permitting regulations clear that's you know subject to consultation we will require permitted poultry farms to only export them in year to farmers where it will not result in the application of nutrients more than crop and soil need or other appropriate recipients by December 20 25 the application of nutrients more than crop and soil needs why isn't that covered by farming rules for water was was one thing that's been why do we need to have an amendment to the environmental permitting regulations so that farmers don't spread in excess of crop and soil need that's a one question for me and also what determines what is crop and soil needs are we still looking at RB 209 and is that the right benchmark for that and how is it going to be monitored now it be enforced well you've got your hand up did you want me to come back on that yes please yes so on on why we've got the permitting change so we have farmers water which applies to those well applies to all farmers but it generally bites on farmers that have land and are spreading materials to land fertilizer manures whatever and then we have the permitting regime which sort of zooms in on in a more in a much more sort of intensive way on on the sort of largest and most intensive farming businesses poultry and pigs what this change would do would place would be to place a duty on the poultry farmer to ensure that they are sending the nutrients to a farm that will not over apply it and our current thinking and I should say it's our current thinking because we need to design this framework and we'll be doing it in consultation with with everyone including people from this group and industry would be it would be on the basis of a nutrient management plan which which should itself be informed by soil testing and an appropriate nutrient management guide like RB 29 but there are others available so it is creating an additional duty that doesn't already exist and it's specific on the poultry farmer who is exporting the manure it is making the poultry farmer responsible for appropriately dealing with this substance which as we've all identified is a is a driver of risk in the country yeah okay thanks well I mean okay I would have thought that if farming water was working then it would be a bit unnecessary to do that that this is by the way kind of happening anyway within the catchment because of our who are the the big company here already exporting the vast majority of the litter and those farms are retaining the litter are having to show that it's not being applied in excess of crop and soil need so in a sense this is already happening well it well but if we're content that as far as you know actions are kind of a permanent solution and well what we're doing is ensuring we're baking its regulation to get that additional I suppose permanent regulatory legal control so ministers decided that was an improvement on relying on voluntary action by businesses okay all right and and as anyone got any comment about RB two and nine so whether or not that is the that is a good thing art Martin as I understand it RB two and nine is undergoing a review they are moving to include low disturbance drilling as part of the design on what is necessary for a crop during that using that technique and I think that's under review as we currently speak okay it's helpful Richard just on that one and I've got a broader point about farm rules for water as it was backed refocus is telling us we need to go beyond I'm not up to speed with RB two and nine to be honest I think it's based on Olsen two isn't it and that whatever we need to go below or some two before we actually start digging into legacy phosphate and that is what is needed but I've got an additional comment I'll come back to when you okay so so you want to know okay Christine I think some of us were hoping that in any proposed changes to the EPR we would see poultry farms with lesser numbers of poultry bought into the regime and possibly pig farms as well that with lesser numbers because if you look on the Welsh side of the border rather than Hereford the proportion of egg laying units is much greater than in Hereford and we are missing a huge part of the population by just applying these radiations to over 40,000 is that part of the plan or not there's also the question is not it's not going to capture the Welsh farms but we could make a note of that point but this is a defra plan it's not Welsh government plans we got Martin and then Sarah there are lots of things that seem to be coming up in this meeting and I was hoping to get through the plan because I have to go with about a quarter to four however mentioning the numbers of chickens per shed there is a move in this country to high welfare chicken to remove the numbers or less than the numbers per crop to allow for more welfare and more space and as a point just people I'm going to have to go unfortunately but I think as a consequence of what's going on in this catchment there's lots of talk around numbers being reduced and numbers being dismissed and maybe it's the agenda of some to get rid of all of it let's not let's not discount the fact that if this area can address the problems required to be addressed and create good water quality we could find that it is a preferred area to produce so let's not throw the baby out of the bath water and export our environmental credential if we find a solution to a problem in this area and I think that needs saying because it's easy to shut everybody down but if we find positive interventions that work then why not exploit that and make that into part of the economics of this county thanks Martin before you go I want I do want to get your comments on the the next thing which is helping farmers retain nutrients in soil so the SFI alms buffer strip element of the plan if you've got anything to say on that buffer strips are interesting 3d buffer strips to be fantastic if there are no drains underneath them I think you'll find in part of the plan at the far end in the cross border work you're something that farmherifurger Kate and myself have been dealing with defra for 18 months now to look to trial some work on how we save nutrient within soil and how we manage phosphate within soil whether it be depletion or lessening the need for if that makes sense and so I think over time SFI will become something I'd like to ask Wil lots of questions about the SFI about the payments on the SFI because how long are they for will they be for 20 years will they be for 5 it's not for me to ask here and now because we've got plenty to get through but I think over time farming practice will change I think farming practice has changed and I think over time with SFIs only just been brought in there's another raft of things coming out in July another set of options and as I think as of last week a thousand applications a week we're going into SFI schemes it is being taken up admittedly yes initially it was perhaps slow now it is getting faster and faster and they will come to a critical mass whereby it will become the norm so let's not write things off prematurely thanks Martin so go and we do you know just will we'll Lacey then thank you I just wanted to come back on the 40,000 birds point so the evidence we have is that at least 80% of birds in in the sort of English stretch of the wine catchment are on around the permitted businesses so we're covering a large majority with the permitting changes that's probably the least that's the lowest estimate I've seen it might be close to 90% so I think if we're hitting 90% of the issue I think we're covering up sort of the plasma drugs of these permitting changes and that's something that you know minutes decided to focus on that okay thanks Will and then Anne thanks no it was just a question of clarity really to Will so EPR currently covers England and Wales so the changes you're talking about in the plan would apply only to England is that right that's right because it be within the jurisdiction of the environment agency which is in England oh Richard and then Martin sorry to come to go back to the substantive point here EPR seems amazingly complicated way of achieving our objectives here and I'm not at all sure why it's been chosen a simple change to the loophole in farming falls rules for water to prevent people using manure in excess of crop needs is a far simpler solution and I find it amazing that Deborah want to bourbon certain poultry producers with the requirement to check on their customers and presumably be legally liable if the customers get it wrong why why choose that route secondly on that I mean I think Christie made the point but nonetheless what about pigs and dairy and all the other issues which aren't covered by EPR but would be covered by closing the loophole in farming falls brawls for water good point and please simply to say that from memory and I'm very happy to be corrected that of the 70% or 72 or 74 depending upon which version of the refocus report you read of pee and poo that is attributable to agriculture only 30 odd percent of that is attributable to poultry so that leaves a very large slice or mound that is not poultry and will we bank what's in the plan for poultry thank you despite some of the other points to be made what about the rest you know that is extensive sheep extensive cattle yes you're doing something on slurry stores but there's a gaping hole for all the other poo and pee but he's still getting into the river so that takes me back to Martin's point the gap analysis we've got SFS not yet in place in Wales SFI ES landscape recovery in England and CSF it's not yet cutting the mustard in terms of the total delivery so Anthea I think one of the early things for your task force is the gap analysis that Martin and I are now sharing thoughts on it's really urgent if you have a target and you have a baseline you need to know what the measures are currently delivering and what they're not and where the gap is as I'm going to have to go and I just want to clarify that I don't think everything is right in the catchment I sound it as if I'm saying everything's right there's nothing to see here I'm not saying that we can all do better but before I leave I just wanted to clarify that fact I'm not here as the sort of ambassador of nothing's wrong here I'm here to say that we are doing better we're doing our best and I welcome what's here on the table today and like to meet you soon I thank you very much thanks very much Martin appreciate your presence here today Sarah just to go over a few of the last few points that we mentioned the regulation in Wales actually asks farmers to record everything on a total farm usage so we are already recording and needing to import and export and record that now from a manure's point of view especially for poultry and for pig we have to calculate our manure storage the water that's produced off our yards and building so the Welsh side is doing it I must admit I know nothing about what you record in England but the Welsh is already giving you that amount of information to whether you're overloading and there are standards that we are complying with now with regards to crop need and we are using the data that's available at the moment to the best of our abilities I also want to widen the conversation out that it's not just about de-stocking or the levels of stock in an area it's about the management of the nutrient that they produce rather than the numbers of animals and actually I think the Y catchment finds itself and this is gonna sound very weird for me to say in a uniquely opportunist position in that you have reached a critical mass that is now becoming an economically viable product to deal with in a really clever way but it is going to have to be done at a government level I have done a European tour so I have seen solutions that are out there specifically for for poultry manures of all types across all sectors within it's not about roilers and layers there's a lot of other support sectors within that supply chain we're not reinventing the wheel by looking at this it's stuff that's already being utilized out there it's producing a lot of green energy and I think that we need to have absolute government tie-in from a Welsh government point of view that there will be a reward for producing electric in tariffs paid for producing that otherwise it's not economically viable so this is not a project that will be solved by individuals even you in this room now we can talk about it all we like but unless we are aiding and helping the agricultural sector across the board break down the barriers to stopping people because nobody is polluting the river on purpose nobody's doing this intentionally there needs to be more solutions then there are problems at the moment and I think having actionable sensible actions put in place is what we need to talk about not reducing stock thanks I'm going to draw a line under it that's why I just think is honestly we have got to go on so number three help farmers retain more nutrients and soil in the field good Reggie's Chair and Nick and Kutcher had their hand at hand oh sorry Nick is it so hi I know you're in the line but just very quickly on the permit thresholds you know free range eggs are a distinct problem in the area and they're generally under 40,000 birds and the point is because they aren't non-permitative they don't get inspected by the environment agency so I put in free information to say how many non-permitative units did you expect in the last four years and the answer is zero zero so that's the problem if they're not permitted they don't get inspected and that's why free range units don't get looked at so that's the desperately to lower that threshold so that they get examined I might get a provider reassurance there was a mistake in the way that data was presented to you Nicola the person answering the question I think thought you were asking about environmental permitting regime inspections general farm inspections which are across all farm types some free range farms had been inspected and I think the information is available online if it's not I can I can convey it to this group about the about the actual number of inspections over that time period that occurred on free range farms so I bet there was a I think that was a misunderstanding within within EA about about how that request was handled so the answer isn't zero I don't remember exactly the numbers of my head but I think I can share that those numbers of the inspections on free range poultry farms to the group okay that'd be really interesting to know great thank you thanks Will okay so the only comment I've got about that section three SFI and the buffers there was a question that came up at the Y catch-up partnership about the how the buffers would work if you have copies buffers they're already coppest the three dimensional buffer I think the point that Martin made very quickly about land drains under buffers is is important there's you know there's a lot less point in having a buffer if you've got a land drain running under it so you'd need to kind of make sure that that's joined up the the SFI payments you say you know could be up to 20 million per year if everyone does it it's a voluntary thing though so and is it is anything in here why specific or is this simply SFI so those actions are across England it would be nice to say they're why specific but on the other hand it you know we're doing it across England and it has a particular reference and relevance to the Y it seems sensible blanket if yeah I mean as a broader point which I haven't either made very much so far I suppose I could have done in response to previous points around around the fact that the future pollution has been has been a problem has been understood for some time in the past four or five years I think people that have been following it will have seen that while I'm sure not sort of the sufficient by everyone in the group action on diffuse agricultural pollution diffuse nutrient pollution settlement pollution has increased it started with the increase in funding for catching sensitive farming it's continued in the increase in funding the environment agency to carry out 4,000 inspections a year across England and many of those I know have been prioritised with a wide catchment on a more tactical level and it's continued with the the rollout of an increasingly comprehensive set of sort of farming schemes grant schemes capital and revenue so we are getting more to grips with the problem all the time and it would have been quite remiss not to flag many of those pretty significant chunkings of engines which have been introduced at a national level which are especially valuable on the why on the point around voluntary you're right they are voluntary but I singled out the white bucket strip because they're actually being the beginning of premium payment which is to say that they are being I mean I won't go too much into methodology but they are being the basically being rewarded at a significantly higher level than they were before so it's a very strong incentive for people to implement them as to the point around land drains yes I think water soluble pollutants can and will escape from land drains but soil erosion I mean you know land drains are not supposed to convey soil out of the field so to the extent of phosphorus is binding to the soil a an extra wide 3D buffer strip will will block a lot of that soil erosion so it's still it still has value but I do take the point nuance point around land drains and and how they'll have an impact thanks thanks that will Simon I really wish that we've been involved in the creation of this because there's a lot of learning in the why this is this is thinking from four years ago we understand now how phosphorus is moving through land drains from legacy soils we understand the fact that if we have got 1,800 tons of phosphorus being applied from poultry manures and we're taking 80% out then that's minus 1,500 tons but we're getting 1,700 tons of bag fertiliser being applied if we take the bag fertilizer out then actually that's minus 3 3,200 tons and we're back into a negative scenario so that's a pathway that we could take within this plan to get back into a negative scenario and it's there's no mention of bag fertilizer in this plan there's no mention of of bringing in basically if we could get to a situation that we could take this loophole off of farming water and go back to crop need we would we would drop into the plan it's yeah and the thing about the legacy phosphorus is it doesn't move from clay soils but it is moving from the lighter wise soils and it is proportional to the soil P index so the higher the soil P index the more that's coming out through though through the land drains I'm interested I hadn't assumed that there was a significant issue with people applying bag fertilizer to high P soils I wouldn't have thought that would be rational. It doesn't matter if it's going in in the form the refocus work was showing that there's about 1,700 tons of bag of if we're just talking about phosphorus and again we are limiting our scope of thinking by focusing on phosphorus but if we're just talking about phosphorus there is the refocus work show that there's about 1,700 tons of bag phosphorus being applied to wise soils and that is it's a mixture of a lot of it is going on to soils that potentially need it or boosting up before a maize crop or where you need or potato crop where you need that burst of phosphorus to get the get the germination and the root development if we could find a way that we could use manure for that and get a better better moving manure around the catchment these are the sort of visionary things that the idea of determining the scope of the problem and determining what are going to be the outcomes for each action in terms of taking bites out of the apple or bites out of the chunk of the problem and that's what I would love the final plan to to show basically. Thanks I'm Steve Plink speaking and I do most of the listening but as he's not here anymore I think there's a couple of things that I just wanted to say and having listened to lots of discussion it seemed to me when I read the Defra plan that it was really focused on nutrient and that was it wasn't looking at spending money on lots of other things and we've got sort of sidelined quite a bit in talking about salmon migration which is absolutely valid but this this plan is really about nutrient and I just wanted to maybe we could focus on on that slightly more and the other thing about Simon's point about the phosphorus so Avara are shifting a lot of chicken all 70% of their litter out of catchment and my understanding from people that sell fertilizer is that that is not being replaced by bagged phosphate and if you talk to any advisor advising on crop nutrition they will tell you that they cannot justify recommending to a farmer to apply phosphate above a level two unless Simon said it's for maize or and or potatoes and generally that phosphate is applied in a very narrow band in relatively small amounts for that crop and until RB two oh nine which is the the Bible in effect is changed then they are within farming rules for water so I think maybe it might help to it probably won't help to reassure people but farmers aren't just spreading phosphorus around their fields because it costs them a shed load of money you know and that impacts on their bottom line why would they do it thank you thanks very much Steve okay we got any more on that element the SFI we're good with that okay so number four support the management of poultry manure by funding poultry manure combustors this is where the 35 million came in when I was driving up the road and I saw the the you know the newspaper they put at those sites it's a 35 million pounds to save the wire oh fabulous it turns out it's up to 35 million to buy incinerators or combustors combustors so yeah but anyway but jolly good the there's a one off-ground to trial the use we have we have already farmers using in the catchment with some farms Joe Hilditch so I don't know if you aware of that we don't necessarily need another trial if that's if this is the direction that we want to go in there's already you know up and running in the catchment and I was curious as to what the what the kind of options appraisal route was that are right that took you to incineration and indeed on farm micro anaerobic digesters as the preferred choices over to the two things that I think we we talk about the most one is pyrolysis and the other would be retrofitting the existing lots and lots of ADs within the county to strip strip the pea and separate the ammonium nitrate so what your thoughts about that will how do we arrive at that these two choices okay well the first point I'll make is that the micro AD and the and the combustors are sort of two separate things being delivered in two quite different ways aware there's all the concerns around around AD and particularly how AD has been pursued up to now so there was ministerial interest in looking at the role of AD in rural energy generation and and sort of manure and nutrient management but we were very cautious about it because of the because of the issues that have been raised and so this is a quite a it's going to be quite a controlled pilot scheme there's going to be a contractor working with the farmer both to operate the AD but also there'll be exercise and some control over how it's used and the two key points are that manure should be the primary by far the primary feedstock and secondly that the digestive that comes out the other end will be used responsibly as a as a as a nutrient product and not just well not spread in excess of crop and soil need so it's a much more tightly controlled exercise and much more smaller scale exercise so if you look at the detail it's going to be very small numbers under very tightly controlled conditions to look at the case for micro AD so it's more of a kind of research project than it is a sort of grant scheme and so sort of that you know the point the point around that was to learn rather than to to pursue something that was deemed to be a you know right now a proven solution as for portion of your combustion the point I would make there is that we've actually gone in the commitment that we're going to work with people to determine exactly the scope of the scheme and I mean it is focused on portion of combustion but if there are other solutions which are deemed and which are evidently superior we will definitely look at that so that's the first point I'd make second point is that portion of combustion has a number of advantages primarily that it reduced it's it can be permitted and so there's an existing regulatory framework to control some of the the risks of it but that it also very significantly reduces the bulk of the material and so aid it's export to where we use the fertilizer a major issue with exporting when you're at the moment to where we use the fertilizer is how heavy and wet it is and how little of its content is nutrients so incineration combustion you know helps us to get around that and it also has side effects in in being sort of replacing an existing piece of infrastructure on the farm producing heat and energy so there's a sort of fit in there and of course it will destroy contaminants which is a major issue with avian influenza so it takes a number of boxes it was a proven technology that we were able to do a cost benefit analysis against and so it is this sort of the leading option that we are examining for ground support to facilitate the proper management of manure to help farmers I guess meet these tighter regulations that we're working on thanks well did you actually consider pyrolysis or retrofitting existing ADs with peace dripping tech so we didn't have the evidence at the time to do a proper cost benefit analysis on those technologies I think peace dripping as far as I'm aware is not used a great deal and so I think it's something that we can and will look at as an option yeah you might you might want to again we have we have in catch one of our innovative farmers is actually developing this tech at the moment so you may have a presentation from him yeah and it's very convincing very exciting but it was we don't have the evidence to do a proper cost benefit analysis on it so I think as soon as we can get that we will legally do that and so I think you know like I said before about us sort of you know engineering phase of working together I think any evidence and information that we can use to assess that option will be greatly received and we'll look at it okay that yeah that would be good I mean I've got concerns did you did you consult the UK PIR 01 report on the environmental aspects and impacts of litter manure combustion is biomass fuel for energy generation I'm reading that obviously which has got a really useful little kind of summary of of pros and cons the and the cons including acid deposition odor nuisance potent greenhouse gases theoretical effluent leakage potentially toxic elements and excess nutrients to soil for men appropriate ash fertilizer application and so forth and of course the other problem with with with a these if you don't strip the P then then we're back to kind of where we are anyway which is relying on not spreading in excess of crop need now if no one was pressing it is spreading in excess of crop need you wouldn't sort of be here now doing this so it doesn't seem to actually fix the problem particularly well to the extent that will enable the export of the nutrients to where they'll be properly utilized yeah also digested we're talking about digestive I mean a concern that I have sort of heard a number of times thought about with digestive is that what you get out is broadly the same quantity as what you put in so although digest although an abrupt digestion can improve the the performance of a of many years as a fertilizer in some ways it doesn't provide a great deal of help when it comes to reducing the volumes and the weight of the material so we're out wanting to make this a sort of long technical discussion about different technologies incineration carries a you know pretty clear sort of advantage over AD in that respect also looking at the we have heard suggestions of trying to mitigate the impact of existing AD I mean ministers opted to focus on on poultry farming and supporting poultry farmers reproducing the impact I guess because there is a very clear connection to the food strategy commitment to broadly maintain over levels of food production and that is that's a very strong commitment and a very strong connection there less of a sort of strategic connection with with sort of mitigating or giving financial support anyway to AD operators particularly if they're feeding their AD with bioenergy crops yeah I'm amazed is another part of the problem Richard just a quick point clarification if you could well is the money is allocated to these developments is that coming from existing national budgets or of is this new money allocated specifically to the Y catchment so it's existing national budgets allocated specifically to the Y catchment we're not at the point where we're able to get additional money out the treasury that's what you mean I mean that happens quite rarely unfortunately I'm not and that's speaking of someone who used to work for the treasury so this is this is money from within a pot that could have been on any number of things dedicated to the Y I appreciate it's not new the treasury wouldn't give new money very easily but actually what it says is this money is available for the Y anyway people could apply for it well it wouldn't so the so many of the actions that we are in the plan are only in existence because of the existence of the plan they would not have been a I mean we're talking about the poultry manure combustor commitment I mean that that's a product of the plan so that that is new to the extent that no one would have been able to access funding for that we're not the existence of the plan does that make sense yeah I'm just sorry I'm just going to point out the very excellent response from the the CLA which pointed out the majority of the money coming from the already committed agricultural transition plan including a 35 million for poultry manure incinerators and I do recommend this response to members on boards very well written response Joshy if we have a change in government I'm assuming that money isn't fixed ring-fenced well in this general election everything I suppose that goes about saying that said I think improving water quality and maintaining fruit production are pretty non contentious political points I think there's a cross-party support for both those outcomes so I can't predict the future no I know I think a good case could be made for continuing the work thank you Georgey and Council maybe thanks I'm going back to your previous point Elisa if AD is a proven technology why do you need to spend money on a pilot and can you not use existing examples to develop effective regulation to make sure that it is done in the best possible way and focus research funds on perhaps next-stage development of pyrolysis instead thank you so I want on AD so this is a specifically a micro AD pilot and the purpose of the pilot is to test its ability to improve the specifically I mean cattle manure nutrient use so I think it's trialing using that technology for that purpose and that's the nature of the trial so it's less about does the does it work does it produce biogas and it's more can we build a model where the farmer is using it to improve how they process and use manure okay so sorry so this is about slurry then this is about a wet menu so don't so we still need to select the farms that will participate in that trial but the expectation is that is that probably a micro AD plant will be more attractive to a cattle farmer than a poultry farmer but it remains to be seen we we need to start the project Commission will commission it and then they will recruit farmers and we'll probably try and get a cross-section of farmers involved but the assumption at the moment the planning assumption at the moment is that it would be probably more attractive to cattle farmers than poultry farmers yeah seems likely Sarah I can probably point you in the direction of somebody that's already running an AD plant with slurry and cattle and maize and poultry litter and reutilizing the digestate as cattle bedding so I'm not sure this is money well spent when I could probably give you and others in the room can probably give you examples that you could go and study that already exists that have been doing it for years and and doing it very very well that's great thanks Sarah so will if you want to take take that up and save 1.25 million then that would seem to be a money-saving idea from from Sarah can I just add that point about regulation that I think we're all aware of good AD plant and and not so good and really just to make sure that any investigations that are done do develop effective regulation to make sure that we do have the best otherwise you'll end up within another bad news story thank you okay that's great and we're going to have one from James and then we're going to move on Elissa I think the conversation the last five minutes particularly points made by Georgie and Richard take us to an action dare I say it and Theodore are we able to give you actions I think we need to ask you to help us with the political uncertainty that's just been raised we've heard from Will that the 35 million is not certain beyond an election however we have farmers and landowners who have contracts under environmental stewardship under SFI or will have but some do have under stewardship and environmental stewardship which are certain and will go beyond an election we're lucky enough in this catchment also to have two landscape recovery two projects one of whom met yesterday for the first time the project border which I'm a member the Yscapes project those are guaranteed for 20 years but if we haven't signed contracts with the farmers presumably those two are uncertain so the only thing that's certain at the moment are the existing agri-environment scheme agreements well have I got that right because that feels a pretty uncomfortable place to be an antheor you have it in your gift I hope when you see both the sexual state and the prospective secretary of state the shadow to later on the line that we need in this catchment one thing we need is certainty otherwise your five-year plan five to ten year plan is a busted flush yes I understand that and I mean I know that my own appointment it goes out the window when there's changes secretary of state so we need to try and do as much as we can as quickly as we can in order to have demonstrated that we're actually doing a useful job and that the next secretary of state or whatever political party will want us to continue and I also completely understand that if we're expecting cooperation which we need from farmers and all sorts of people that they're not going to be too happy if they think that it's all up for grabs and all up in the air again in a few months time just for we move on to check that Nicola Kutcher she did want to raise a point about the technical solutions as you sit on the call yeah yeah you're right it's that wider concern but I said well it's to deal with a number of points that they made by the farmers and yourself world that there's an issue of food security but actually the refocus report that is referenced in this recommended exporting the new and reducing livestock numbers it's not a campaign of the gender it's coming from the science it would also be in line with your national food strategy to reduce you know we overall need to reduce our meat consumption to meet environmental targets so the problem is if you lock in intensive poultry production in this catchment by creating a secondary industry dependent on the manure that raises you're locking all the other problems affecting farmers you're looking in important feed from from overseas you're locking in ammonia emissions you're locking in air quality problems you're locking in you know the problems of intensive poultry are wider than river pollution and so the concern here is rather known to the source of the problem and reducing livestock numbers you're actually potentially as Martin alluded to giving headroom for this industry to grow and that is a huge local concern because the concerns are beyond river pollution and I do know farmers that are interested in reducing their stocking densities so they they wouldn't go out of business but they could have fewer birds in their sheds those birds would have a better quality of life they could get a better price for that chicken there are ways of these stocking that could be good and you could also be offering grants as friends of the river why made clear in their statement you could be offering grants to help people repurpose their poultry sheds to grow other things like indoor lettuces or mushrooms so why only use public money to support an industry that actually should be be scaling in this attachment okay well thank you Nick let's so I mean I've said about the national food strategy commitment to broadly maintain overall levels of reproduction I guess following on from that ministers chose not to pursue actions that would sort of have a specific upwards or downwards impact on on larger numbers or food production as for the use of public money yes this particular commitment and this very kind of headline sort of funding number in the plan is focused on a you know a technical solution to managing or to help manage poultry manure actually many of the other sort of payments that or probably the vast majority of the farming schemes budget is geared towards slightly less productive but more sustainable in some cases much more sustainable agricultural practices and my personal favorite is no-till agriculture which can be less productive particularly in the first few years but then as you improve the soil quality the soil levels of organic matter actually you start to generate your own nutrients you need less nutrients don't you turn import as much but even the as much manure there I say it and and you have a more sustainable food system so I take the point I don't be anyone was surprised and would have been surprised that the government didn't sort of push down on the overall scale of any food sector but yeah on the general use of public money point I would say broadly on the whole most farming schemes contribute towards a a slightly less intensive and short term productive model over a more sustainable long-term productive model that's more resilient to to climate change and environmental hazards and the rest of it so I think that the overall drive is still toward a more sustainable form of agriculture rather than a baking in you know slightly less sustainable you know perhaps conventional practices but I'll take your I take a point I mean everyone's been calling from a moratorium on intensive livestock units in this catchment including the water you know the last environmental order committee report said there should be a cap on lives or numbers in catchments exceeding the nutrient budgets so I am disappointed that Deborah has some kind of taken the action well I think the well the government chose to take the approach it did I think that you're considering ways to tackle the problem the problem that the plan sort to solve was was nutrient pollution from a sort of surplus of nutrients being applied to to areas of land I think in general you should pursue the policy instrument that will sort of achieve that with the minimum of sort of disruption to to sort of what people are doing now certainly that's the government's approach and ministers decided that the way to mitigate the pollution from poultry farming was to better manage the manure and that's what many of our points are raised so I don't think it was deemed necessary to impose that moratorium to achieve the goal of the plan set to do thanks very much well um Steve you want to come in yeah thanks Lisa yeah I wonder whether it's possible James talked earlier about baselines and to get a handle on how land use change has happened and is happening and farmers have to do the either a basic payment scheme form or a single farm payment form to my uninformed brain it wouldn't seem very difficult to be able to get you know how many how much more cover crop is being grown how much land has changed from arable to to grass but I don't I always seem to struggle to get those figures from anywhere is that possible that the RPA can let Herrificia have those figures so so there are land use statistics published online I believe I don't know if they're mapped there is data published about overall levels of land use nothing it's probably broken down by sort of geographic areas to an extent I don't know if it's quite down to county level or below about balance between different kinds of arable and and grassland and I think even different kinds of grassland then the RPA will be developing its own data set on SFI action uptake and I think that will be extremely data rich because of course they use know who's doing what they can go and check every now and then and make sure that they're paying people for the actions they're doing I mean the point on SFI is because the actions are coming online and the uptake is coming up actually we're probably a tiny bit soon to know exactly to get really rich data from RPA about who's doing what probably in a year or two RPA will have got the data in after the wave of after the you know this wave of uptake this increased uptake has happened and then I think we'll start getting really really rich data and I know my team will be looking at that very closely because one of our responsibilities is reporting on our progress towards achieving the water cause in agriculture target under the Environment Act to reduce nitrogen phosphorus and sediment pollution by 40% by 2038 versus a 2018 baseline that sounds like it will be a very rich data seem to which you know look forward to seeing that brilliant okay so I'm gonna move on now to number six sorry just while I've got the opportunity because you mentioned the word moratorium so I thought is I need the right kind of introduction for me to say you just said will that you didn't think it well ministers didn't feel it was right to disrupt the existing market even though we are all aware that the why catchment is over over livestock it doesn't mean that we can't have livestock we just need to get back into them kind of numbers we can manage but it was very easy for a moratorium to be issued against my sector and overall we're responsible for 0.23% of phosphorus load so I'm wondering why it's not suitable to apply it to a sector where we know we have an issue but it's been okay to apply it to a sector for five years where we have no responsibility and also can't fix it and we're not being given 35 million to do so and also while I'm on the 35 million isn't it better that the supermarkets or the processor are asked to contribute to that money to help their businesses become better rather than the public money paying for that and then that 35 million could go to other farmers to do some of the lovely things that other farmers are doing because there are some really good things happening but they don't get a bunch of that money so just kind of putting the 35 back out to other people might be fairer okay well I don't want to I don't want to just for a second I don't understand how difficult the you know working to nutrient neutrality is for the construction sector and there was a great deal of work going on across Defra and other government departments to try and ease the burns on the construction sector and a great deal has been done around water company investment and other things to try and unblock housing development and reduce the cost per house of building more houses the regulatory framework is quite tight in that area and so and so you know we are doing what we can as government to unblock that as quickly as possible as for the funding for additional farm or sort of funding for upper farms I mean as I've alluded to already there was quite a comprehensive funding offer for farmers to take all sorts of actions to reduce the environmental impact of their farms you know by reducing solar erosion nutrient pollution etc so the 35 million I wouldn't say is necessarily greatly at the expense of upper farmers there is a comprehensive set of actions that farmers can take them for a quick a quick place to find it all is the agricultural transition plan update that was published in January that that is the latest point where the sort of full full range of things that farmers can be paid for can do within the farming schemes to set up thanks thanks well I think we might be cap at some point about the actual money involved here I'm gonna move on though sorry about more than double grant approvals for slurry stores we will improve 100% of round two applications and streamline natural England's approach to planning consultations for grant funded projects we will promote existing planning policy existing new permitted development rights which support farm productivity and diversification projects that enable farmers to increase their income helping to support sustainable food production okay little fuzzy on how new permitted development helps to river but anyway has anyone got any comments on the more than double grant approvals for slurry stores the role of the planning authority in that is problematic and has been for some years what I heard and what I read is easing the planning process to make this I mean better plot story saws are a good thing we can all agree with that one of the problems thus far has been that conditions placed on nutrient plant management plans by planning authorities in granting planning permission for agricultural development have not been monitored and we know that as a matter of fact that neither Herifatia palace nor Banai Bikaniog nor I believe Monmasya have ever monitored a condition placed on a nutrient management plan so this is a gaping hole and it's not through the fault of the planning authority there's an issue of capacity there's probably an issue of skills and I know you're aware of this and you are indeed the cabinet member for planning an environment you're acutely aware of it but this is deeply problematic how it has purchased on this particular aspect of the plan is what I'm interested in asking about I think as yeah okay so I suppose from you know what you know a phenomenon that has been observed is our manure sheds being constructed under grant schemes to keep manure out of the rain good thing but then being used to house increasing livestock while the manure stays in the rain and there's no way of monitoring that and even where one you know is reported and and looked at by enforcement the the story is that the livestock within had had it had it had it had a cold had the flu and so they had to be indoors and it was a temporary arrangement but there's still indoors now several months on so it's difficult to monitor and so therefore I'm not sure I think we would want to see that a little bit more thought through but it doesn't make matters worse if it makes matters better woo-hoo if it makes matters worse not so much and thank you and again I think I need I need a little bit more detail about how new permitted development rights which support farm productivity and diversification addresses nutrients in the river so that I don't know well can you can you add anything any detail into that that would just explain how they connect so some of the permanent development rights we're talking about I mean admittedly it might not feel quite as sort of straight straight on the market some of the other comments when the plan but there is a the logic behind it is that many people say that farmers are being forced to intensify their operations because of a lack of income the difficulty in making enough money from from normal as particularly more sustainable agricultural practices the part of the intention to new and existing permanent development rights is to enable farmers to open farm shops and other things that enable them to sort of get direct to the customer and raise more income and that can that can help but it's yes admittedly it's not a it's not it's a bit more of a sort of a you know sort of winding path to the to the specific nutrient problems than than some of those other commitments but they are beneficial they do give farmers more flexibility and if they can raise income from other sources it would reduce the pressure that we often hear on farmers to intensify their operations okay thanks for that explanation Richard just a comment really the way it reads is that actually deferer wanting to approve things have approved things which wouldn't be approved otherwise it's the only way I can read this thank you and Jamie thank you chat it's not an area I know well that just to size as I don't quite understand it I'll ask a simple question how can government ensure that it's doubled in its own words more than double grant approvals it's just hope so they'll come forward or I mean what will happen to ensure in the words of the plan that they will be doubled okay well I apologize of the wording is unclear so what this refers to is that the funding that's been allocated to slurry store grants has been doubled this year compared to the previous year and so we will be basically agreeing to fund twice as many projects as we did last year and that number actually is every single person who applied so and is that is that just in just in the Y catchment or nationally that's nationally but there are increased numbers of applications in the Y which we are approving good any sorry Jamie and on the facts that's just he's got a challenge that haven't you it's not about the why it's about national that yeah I mean I think we will calculate all this when we get students in anyway isn't it okay so number seven is any any more on that no good okay number seven we're just to say sorry just to think we're only talking about England yes yeah yeah it's the different work with partners on the Yscapes and Y Valley Ridge to River landscape recovery projects we love these projects they are great so fabulous glad that they're going to be supportive is it's just clever is he undertaking to support you know we love the Yscapes for yeah I just have a look sorry indeed I'm fantastic and we should recognize that it's an existing project and welcome it indeed just for the record it is already there isn't it exactly there but what I'm trying to draw out is whether or not this is an undertaking then to commit to the full funding of both those projects sorry chair I I'll put up my hand I've said I'm I'm on the project board thank you for Yscapes we met yesterday so I declare that interest I also wrote big chunk of the application for the successful bid some let's run the table know that just just it says subject to computing the development phase we will provide significant long-term funding let me try and answer the question because my understanding is this we are in the development phase yes we have another almost two years to go to the end of the development phase and only when we get to the end of the development phase will we get through a gateway if we pass the criteria and only at that point will the funds be guaranteed so the plan needs to be absolutely clear about what this plan says James is subject to completing the development phase I think we can all assume that you'll completely development we hope then there will be significant long-term funding 20 plus years for the delivery of the transformational aspect so what I'm trying to draw out of will is whether or not that is a firm commitment that as long as these plans complete the development phase they will get the 20 year funding well that is the question I asked earlier and I wasn't sure I got a clear answer so I'm very pleased to hear again from will you know if we get to the development phase because the agri-environment schemes that exist under agreement are guaranteed post-an-election we're in the development phase and there's an election between this is the answer I'm trying to get James great thank you okay will over to you okay so government regardless the election government will honor existing commitment signatures signed agreements beyond that it would be like it's just not in our power to pre-commit a future government administration to anything because it's their right as the elected government to take whatever course they deem appropriate now to develop the development phase assuming all is well and I can't see why a future administration would want to pull the club in this project but I cannot at the same time say that they don't have the right to because of course they didn't but I can't see how they look if it completes development phase yes the funding as pledged within the existing scheme will be provided good so all they need to do is complete the development phase no the development phase will determine in part how much funding is required from government and from other partners I presume people working on the scheme will fully understand this in sure they will so there's no specific set of money that I can sort of say yes this will be provided but yes if they do it completely development okay in line with the scheme and it will be funded assuming a future government doesn't decide to be sweeping and and sort of you know difficult constant changes fine that's great thanks well yeah good we'll get that any more comments on that good number eight just one so the what I'm hearing is that there's no difference between the situation before this plan was released and after is that right well but these projects that's correct no difference okay because it wasn't it would be quite strange that we didn't actually yeah that's great thanks well thanks for the thanks for the clarification there okay so number eight provide funding for at least two projects delivered with local partners in the next financial year we will make early progress towards the delivery of a river-wide catchment plan by funding two local projects okay the one project is restoring our rivers which will improve the channel of the river log I'd be very cautious around that really anything that is physical works to the river log channel I'm not saying just I can happily speak to that yes Jamie I mean so Martin coming here but this is similar to point seven an existing proposal underneath EA's white refunding point one item one is projects proposed not yet formally funded by EA to be delivered by the wildlife trust heritage wildlife trust and then I think point to be is a project proposed by Wuf and Simon's team but I mean on the river channel specifically yeah so basically these are existing projects within the partners on the board I think we should kind of put the channel itself to the side in the kind of the yeah the huge sense of that what that means it's positive support to improve the channel with farmers land owners etc I think come in to help me that's great thank you just wondering knowledge it's partner matched funding so we provide a proportion and then those that we partner with provide the rest so therefore you can get more benefit from this so is that how the provide funding that's the EA providing the so this is our weave allocation which we have year-on-year and the two projects referencing the plan are those that are meeting the criteria for that allocation of funding and we work closely with both Wuf and and the wildlife trust to deliver those so you're providing as it we're match funding yes yes always we match one okay just to clarify again is this new or not new this is existing it hasn't been allocated yet so is we funding for 24 25 so it hasn't it hasn't been allocated yet they were in the process of the business cases but we've I think we've got through the business cases but it's an existing program of work and just very quickly lastly how much you're talking to the CEO so we can't give the amount today publicly because we have to look at the allocation across West Midlands we're not quite certain what the total allocation will be because we then need to look at where our other projects may need funding but I'm hoping the next couple of weeks that I've become clearer and obviously we work with as we do already with Simon and Jay right okay I've got a follow-on question for all of the projects really when you do when you've pitched for the money do you have to quantify how much phosphorus you'll be saving or they could I can see that they're broader kind of projects but they're in the plan for how we say phosphorus in the why so do they come with an agreement that you have to say how much phosphorus because none of these none of the actions have any quantifiable objective or outcome so when I have to put forward a housing calculation it's to the to the ounce or phosphorus so it'd be good if there's money being spent if you can tackle in the calculation then we've got something to get into that gap again not in so yeah the we first has a specific criteria which is linked to water framework directive objectives which also linked to nutrients when we look at projects I think we've already said and and I think it's well recognized it's not just all about nutrients so a lot of the work that we partner with with Jamie and Simon and others is also about education and that wider habitat enhancement and creation to make sure that it's more holistic rather than focusing on one because I think we also recognize you focus on one thing now the future as we've said today could be very different so that that's a criteria and we're really really clear on that we we also prioritize sac catchment so so part of our criteria is looking at the the designations so when we consider what we allocate they do they do take key consideration into that productions on whether it's AD incineration river buffers all of those things have quantifiable numbers to them so it'd be good to try and get some of those captured while we're looking at phosphorus can I come back on that that's okay yeah so so part of the work we're doing with the diffuse water pollution plan including the modeling will provide greater certainty than we have before okay so when we look at certainty a lot of that does come from scientific models we have to work with the models that we have but it would also consider the research of some of the refocused studies we're looking at we're with the Lancaster team on let the roller legacy phosphate at the moment so what we will be able to do is you start to model some of the different outputs and what that likely projection would be saying nutrient reductions but this is the wider conversation we need to have and bring in everyone in on because this is a new piece of work and I think it's certainly something that most people are asking for but we can only work with the science that we've got and any future research that comes in and I think that's where the the commitment in the last point we'll go on to shortly is around that future research need great that's great thank you and thank you for the the segment into the last second oh Sarah can answer the point for why scapes on nutrient you'd rather I didn't was that shaking your head just hold that thought because that's everyone to come in if those representing whales online with an RW and Welsh government whether there are equivalent funding pots being set aside or allocated for project work on the Welsh side of the border good question cat and somebody right I'm not sure if I could ask that's on top of my head afraid okay could you could you do it can you take it away and I can come in with we've got the commitment from Welsh government to fund the upper wire restoration project that's a project that's about so launch officially in June a lot of stakeholders on this call will probably be getting invites to that launch so that's a you know a restoration project that's that's being funded to the Welsh government via an article that's already in place that's pretty cool to see the detail of that that's good that's good to know thanks like that but yeah any any any other kind of innovation technology any any other it could just sort of let Sarah know so she knows what she can talk to her to her farmer groups who's next but James and James I'm gonna be with James Marston very generous you've got I mean speak a lot on the why scapes funnily enough the application didn't ask us for a specific number on phosphate but what we put in the application and what in effect we're now contracted to through the development phase and I'm reading this reduce nutrient inputs to draw down the p loading to at least the agro agronomic minimum or below Olson P by 2035 okay whereas the numbers on bng units and on carbon were much more specific interesting thank you James you can then tie that with the frame monitoring that was conducted with by the environment agency and by farmers like Steve Klink to put actual numbers on what Olsen P what reductions in Olsen P means in terms of reduced input of legacy p into the river so this is this is all part of the why catch on plan that we're doing is we're trying to change it from outputs to outcomes and but quantifiable numbers on actions yeah exactly that's such an important piece of work James Simon this is my car yeah we've raised the sort of importance of making this across border plan and you know I'd like to say thanks to well for coming and working so hard taking so many questions but we just can't get away from the fact that there is no detail on the sustainable farmers scheme in terms of the payments and the answers today that have been given to questions raised by Sarah about the wild side of flat detail real detail and I wonder has this forum had an equivalent meeting with representations from Welsh government and if not could we request one after the July summit to get the sort of detail that was connected to I mean I suppose it in in yeah it works slightly different with the world side so the world side invites me as the chair of the board to the summit so I've had the four summers you see the overall kind of pan whales approach to the the sacks but yeah I mean we could we do we do need to kind of calibrate that better obviously today has been principally and say thanks to Will for for being there but it's been principally about the you know about Will and the plan because it's a it's a defra plan you know there there isn't a an equivalent although we may I think once this plan for the apple pie is published and it's referring to that would be the moment when we'd want to kind of do this then if that's okay yeah yeah. Okay the trouble seems to me that defros is two things defros are UK Ministry and responsible for all sorts of things about farming in England and we've heard an awful lot about what happens in Herrfordshire in in the commitments and I'm a little bit disappointed because just one of the commitments which was the environmental permitting regime I thought was UK-wide but and in fact NRW has told me we can't do anything about this because it's for the UK government and now we've heard that that's just England as well. Okay so a little bit of confusion about the EPR. It's the legal status. Yeah whether that's a UK thing or a devolved thing. I guess I don't know. Will you say that it's a UK is the English government thing and not therefore a Welsh thing. Yeah well yeah I mean the environment is quite confusing the different pieces of legislation can either cover England, Wales, you know any sort of combination to and Scotland in some cases and then sometimes there is a piece of legislation that applies to England and Wales but in certain parts of that legislation only apply to England or Wales. So it can be it can be very confusing. What's quite clear and demarcated is that agriculture and environment policy is devolved and that means that while defros are UK Ministry our powers to change legislation and create funding schemes is limited to England and I know that that is evident and people have commented on it throughout this discussion. Yeah so that's that's the answer this is the Defra plan it pertains only to England and I think you know we're right to sort of say but the river is also Wales and Cat is on the call to hear that and hopefully we will have a kind of another version of this later on once we've got the plan for the Apple Y that Anne was referring to and and you know Welsh government has got a chance to to see if it wants to do something other than other than that and maybe that's enough I don't know I haven't seen it so let's let's take it a step at a time I think we've raised that concern it's been heard. Yeah okay we've got any more is there anyone to come back. Can I ask a very naive question does Westminster not give Wales the pot of money we spend on what we are devolved to regulate and but it would be able to Welsh government how they spend it yeah yeah Richard yeah yeah it's just to express considerable frustration this has been best about 12 months in development this plan it doesn't doesn't even sound as if Defra talk to Wales government about the potential of joining up these dots. But then what we must remember as well this plan has got within it the you know money for the incinerators money for ADs whatever but also within it is reference to a plan which is the plan hopefully that we know is the why catchment plan with the nutrient management plan within now that plan as we know sits comfortably across everybody because we're all involved in it so let's not get too hung up on that right I'm just going to look at number nine we will work with partners in academia agriculture in the third sector in England and Wales to produce new evidence on how farmers can mitigate pollution given the catchment's unique geography including from legacy phosphate deeper and soil structure fabulous I love that one is there any money in that a bit well yeah so Defra research budget will be used to pay for my project okay and how does that get access how do we will Defra will commission research project okay and who will Defra speak to how will you know what to come yeah well so actually we had a bit of a conversation about this earlier didn't we about evidence needs and the interaction with citizens scientists so I think we need to speak to lots of people in this room the room that I'm not currently in and others to properly scope that project okay and then once we have a scope that we're happy with we can then there's a few different ways we can go out to tender for it brilliant okay there would have to be a competitive tender to that's one of my favorite bits just literally one of my favorite bits you saved the best till last well a lot we know a lot of people wanted that and they did come buried through I mean I was at the ground table the other one and that was a clear ask around the evidence so we want to make sure that was in the eventually plan all right okay that's brilliant so um I'm aware time is ticking on Sarah just very quickly clarification if that research budget is cross-border and can be accessed from people on the well side of the border to do some research for well-needed data what I would say it does say we will work with partners flower in England and Wales that's right so around commercial contrast there might be a little bit more flexibility and that we can pay someone who is also being paid by the wealth government like a contractor to do some work now we need to we need to sort out like exactly how that works mechanically I couldn't give you like a sort of legal commercial commentary on it but the commitment is what's in the plan to work cos-border and ensure that the research project has cross-border relevance we have spoken to Welsh government officials about that we're in a few sort of exchanges at the moment about how we make that work different research funds etc so okay yeah I mean because I think there may there may be some mileage in that you know that Welsh government I think it's very interesting stuff and a barista and other places so you know in terms it might save us reinventing the wheel if there's already something underway you know in fact all the others actually trying to get a project underway with a barista using with a heritage a farmer but we've ran out we didn't get the money but I'm but I wish we were prepared to bugging the money but we couldn't get the other bit of money yeah Sarah I have been in meetings with the farm heritage a team with Defra and Welsh government officials and everybody's pleading the penny pot is empty so is there a commitment to the fund is that actually got a money tree value on it well is it just a research fund with no financial figure and are you still in discussions between whether that's a Welsh pot or an English pot that's actually going to pay for that and that's why there's no figure on it yes so we're working out exactly what we'll pay for it but we're clear that like it will be paid for basically we'll work out what we need to do and that means we need to sort of scope it out of everyone we've really got an idea we could launch a research project we've got some ideas but I think there's more consultation that we can should be doing and then when we know what that will cost then we can secure the research budget in general research and development is a is a is it's easier funding to acquire let me say I'm not going to outbounds and then other types of funding generally treasury government wants to spend money on research and so I'm not saying that it's like an unlimited budget but there is budget available and once we know the scope of the research project we will we'll go about securing funding okay that's that's brilliant I think yeah I mean engagement with some of the people in this room will would be very helpful in arriving at the right projects so thank you okay I'm going to thank Will really a lot for giving up an enormous amount of his time to be on this call we're very happy thank you okay right so now as a board do we do we want to discuss what we do next and what we want to do with our lovely chat we've sort of you know we want to do anything else now Richard sorry just a quick overall question the file for this is marked final as a final document but yet the words draft emblazoned over every page is this a draft is it a given what happens next you talked about consultation is this now open for consultation where are we general that's a fair enough question John's you actually asked as soon as I received it from I emailed Jesse Norma said you know this has got draft written on it you know that's all fine don't worry about it okay so should we worry about that well is it a draft document or is this a final document well if you want the final document it's online it's on go to UK yeah I don't know what I mean I don't know that I've got your your version given I'm sure in lots of versions have been kind of I think so yeah it was a pub the version that got published to have draft written on it before it went but it's not it's just a thing don't worry well yeah I mean go and go to UK and the online version is the current one yeah so it's just for clarification is the version that got circulated to us the link's been published is that the same as what's published online without the word draft okay for UK website one okay so right do we want to do anything else at this point given the options are do nothing we've had a nice chat we've all kind of you know we met lovely will and it's all been great or that we might want to put forward a response to this and we may want to also respond to the office environment audit committee call for witness for the next session on rivers you ask us the nutrient management board at the nutrient management board members I'm asking we should we should make a response shouldn't otherwise we're not aboard doing okay do you want to just respond to to defra to world we'll write a letter should be right to will and covering also thank him and then yeah have some other points and then also write to Anthony as well yeah I think I mean technically as a civil servant I have no sort of separate legal identity to the sector state so the next thing is to write to a minister okay rather than individual because it would be your minister a much bigger team so I think addressing it to one specific official might I was like I was like when I got on a dress um with any particular minister more okay so either either more sleep or both yeah when you go to him okay if that speaking not as a member of the nutrient management or as your guest today which I'm very grateful it would be helpful if that response could be sent in time for Anthony to have it in her pocket um Anthony I think should be copied in but when she goes to the sector state if she had that response as a belay do copy it in her pocket that would be very helpful as it would also be very helpful when she goes to see Steve Reed so there's a timing issue and some urgency in drawing that response together if we can do that okay so would the board trust the chair to draft something and get it out to the board ASAP and I would recommend the same approach to Philip Dunn's call for evidence for the AC follow-up yeah so same approach formal response from the board signed off by yourself as chair yeah I think yeah I mean I was thinking it could be the same thing but it really it would the call the environment audit committee is a somewhat different ballgame isn't it because it's a it's a broader inquiry so I think I will invite I mean I can I can sort of draw something up but I also invite any individual board member if there's something that they particularly feel that we should put in them well yes they are there are different things because the call for evidence from the AC has set out its scope of its inquiry so you wish to address yeah it's dependent with the agenda papers for today which is why we can discuss it so yeah I'm open for all suggestions on that front if anyone's got anything they want to bring to bear but for now I'm going to say well let's call it a day it's been a long session hopefully it's been useful again thank you to everyone attending online particularly well very grateful for your presence here thank you and thank you to board members and to the catchment partnership committees and also to my guitar our new River champion whoo yeah can I just say thank you to yeah I do want to say thank you to Will because he's he's put in a terrific amount of work on that and I'm very grateful to him but thank you to all of you for inviting me and I really look forward to working with you