Trevor Sargent
Question:116 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the measures, if any, he is taking to limit the use of nitrate applications on land. [5477/00]
Vol. 515 No. 1
116 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the measures, if any, he is taking to limit the use of nitrate applications on land. [5477/00]
Under the rural environment protection scheme the permitted level of organic nitrate for the grassland shall not exceed 170 Kg/Ha and the total permitted level of both organic and chemical nitrate shall not exceed 260 Kg/Ha.
My Department in conjunction with the Department of the Environment and Local Government published a Code of Good Agricultural Practice to Protect Waters from Pollution by Nitrates in July 1996. This code complements the objectives of REPS and contains practical advice on how to avoid the risk of water pollution and on how good pollution control practices can be put in place. The aim is to inform and instruct farmers on the ever increasing importance of enhancing the countryside in which they work because of their predominant influence on its development. The code is freely available from my Department.
117 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the reason for reducing by 50% the penalty for exceeding nitrogen limits under the revised terms and conditions for the REP scheme from 1 January 1999. [5478/00]
Prior to the revision of the REP scheme in January 1999, contracts for participants who exceeded the nitrogen limits were terminated and reimbursement of aid already paid was sought. A penalty of 25% was incurred by participants exceeding the phosphorous limits.
The penalty for exceeding phosphorous limits was increased to 50% and the penalty for exceeding the nitrogen limits was revised to 50%. A 50% penalty is severe in monetary terms and has the advantage of maintaining errant participants within REPS so that they remain subject to the conditions and specifications. The environmental benefits which accrue from maintaining participants in the scheme far outweigh the negative environmental effect which might result from a policy of exclusion.
In circumstances where it is apparent that no effort has been made to comply with the conditions, termination of the contract remains an option under the general provisions of the REP scheme.