Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (Scotland) Regulations 2008 - action programme: consultation response - review of measures
The public consultation sought views on our review of measures for the Action Programme for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (Scotland) Regulations 2008.
Summary and Response to the Consultation
Description of respondents
The technical consultation ran for 12 weeks opening on 21 July 2025 and closing on 13 October 2025. The consultation received nine responses in total via citizen space and email (see Table 1). Not all respondents answered every question and hence, the sample size is reduced for certain questions. Where respondents gave permission for their responses to be published, these can be read on the Scottish Government’s website[1].
| Respondent Group | Number of Respondents | Method of Response |
|---|---|---|
| NGO’s | 1 | |
| Trade Bodies | 2 | Citizen Space |
| Others (i.e. individuals) | 3 | Citizen Space |
| Businesses / Farming Services | 2 | Citizen Space |
| Fisheries Interest | 1 | |
| Total | 9 | Citizen Space / Email |
The findings here reflect only the views of those who chose to respond to this consultation. It should be noted that respondents to a consultation are a self-selecting group, and only a small number of responses were received for the current exercise. The findings should not, therefore, be considered as representative of the views of the wider population.
Feedback summary and response
The consultation sought feedback on the review of the NVZ-AP through nine questions and also asked for suggestions for further research ahead of the next review (Question 10). The table below summarises the responses to the questions and relevant feedback where responses did not agree with the review is noted below and in the next steps.
| Question | % of Respondent’s agreed | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Q1. Do you agree with our review of the maximum application of nitrogen fertiliser requirements and our proposal that we do not change them at the current time? | 88% | 8 |
| Q2. Do you agree with our review of the livestock manure nitrogen efficiency standard values and our proposal that we do not change them at the current time? | 100% | 8 |
| Q3. Do you agree with our review of chemical/ manufactured fertiliser closed period measures and our proposal that we do not change them at the current time? | 88% | 8 |
| Q4. Do you agree with our review of organic manures that have a high readily available N content closed period measures and our proposal that we do not change them at the current time? | 88% | 8 |
| Q5. Do you agree with our proposal that we do not add a closed period for farmyard manure measure to the NVZ Action Programme? | 100% | 8 |
| Q6. Do you agree with our review of storage requirements for slurry, silage, poultry manure and farmyard manure and our proposal that we do not change them at the current time? | 100% | 8 |
| Q7. Do you agree with our review of infield temporary storage of solid manure requirements and our proposal that we do not change them at the current time? | 100% | 8 |
| Q8. Do you agree with our review of nitrogen fertiliser application requirements and our proposal that we do not change them at the current time? | 88% | 8 |
| Q9. Do you agree with our proposal that we do not introduce NVZ Action Programme measures for catch (cover) crops at the current time? | 88% | 8 |
|
Q10. In order to support the development of future NVZ Action Programme measures, please, make us aware of any relevant current research likely to be completed by 2029 and/ or provide recommendations for future research areas on existing or new measures to reduce nitrogen pollution from agricultural activities based on scientific research and evidence taking account of Scotland’s agricultural, soil and climatic conditions. |
4 |
Maximum application of nitrogen fertiliser requirements (Question 1)
While 88% of consultees agreed with our review of the maximum application of nitrogen fertiliser requirements, we note stakeholder feedback on considering how the SRUC Technical Notes are referenced and updated in relevant legislation.
Chemical/ manufactured fertiliser closed period measures (Question 3)
Our review noted that recent reviews of the AHDB/DEFRA Nutrient Management Planning guide (RB209) and SRUC technical notes have not identified a need to change the current stance on Autumn nitrogen requirements for winter sown cereals. Whilst the majority of responders agreed with our position, feedback provided trials not included in the RB209 conducted by Scottish Agronomy Ltd (ORETO Certificate 448).
Based on our review and stakeholder feedback we will not make any changes to the chemical/ manufactured fertiliser closed period measures. However, the additional trials conducted by Scottish Agronomy will be considered as part of the next review, which will be undertaken by at least 2029.
Nitrogen fertiliser application requirements (Question 8)
Relevant feedback included a suggestion to update the baseline yields to take into account current practices and expectations. However, other consultees noted that the current measures already set a robust baseline.
The recent review of RB209 and the Technical Notes also did not identify any crop trials data that suggested higher recommendations were generally required. In addition, by breeding for yield, modern varieties tend to result in increased nitrogen use efficiency, as highlighted in Technical Note TN731 for spring barley. Furthermore, we expect support for nutrient planning tools such as PLANET[2] will further strengthen compliance and environmental outcomes.
Given this, and the continued phasing in of requirements for the precision application of slurries, which are being phased in up to 2027 through the Environmental Authorisation (Scotland) Regulations 2018[3] (EASR), we will not change the nitrogen fertiliser application requirements at this time.
Catch (cover) crops (Question 9)
While the majority of responses agreed that the successful use of cover (catch) crops in Scotland is challenging, as Scotland’s short post-harvest window limits universal feasibility, one response suggested that this should not rule out the requirement for the majority of farming businesses.
Feedback also noted the benefits of maintaining a voluntary approach, supporting farmers in adopting beneficial practices where possible while continuing to build evidence and capacity. One suggestion, which supports the voluntary approach, was incentives for cover crops. While incentives to encourage catch (cover) crops are not relevant to the NVZ-AP, feedback also noted the Agri-Environment Climate Scheme[4] (AECS) offers funding for practices that enhance soil health and biodiversity, including green manure and stubble management.
Given the feedback, we do not intend to introduce measures for cover (catch) crops into the Nitrate Vulnerable Zones Action Programme at the current time.
Contact
Email: waterenvironment@gov.scot