Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD debate -
Thursday, 25 Mar 2004

Nitrates Directive: Presentation.

I welcome Mr. John Sadlier and Mr. Tim Morris from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Mr. Michael O'Donovan and Mr. Matthew Sinnott from the Department of Agriculture and Food. They are here to discuss the nitrates directive. Before asking Mr. Sadlier to make his opening remarks, I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege the same privilege does not extend to them. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Mr. John Sadlier

I thank the committee for inviting us and giving us the opportunity to address it. With permission I propose to give a brief opening statement and to follow wherever the committee wishes to go in terms of general or detailed questions.

The nitrates directive deals with only one topic; it refers exclusively to the protection of water quality from agricultural pollution. The directive focuses on nitrates. It is important to emphasise that this is only one of a number of related directives. Other directives which have to be taken into account in this regard include the waste directive, the water framework directive and the directive relating to dangerous substances in water. There are even more directives than these.

Currently, an initiative is under way, led primarily by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government with the Department of Agriculture and Food, to enhance the level of protection of the environment against potential pollution by farming. In its simplest guise it aims to give a stronger footing to the operation of good agricultural practice or, to put it another way, it discourages bad practice. To a large extent what we are now doing is based on what has already been established as good agricultural practice. This is outlined in the document which I understand has been circulated to committee members. It is a code of good agricultural practice in regard to water quality which was agreed between the two Departments and the farming organisations in 1996. It was widely published at the time. It describes what a farmer behaving reasonably and carrying on his business in an appropriate way would be doing. The aim is to upgrade it from a voluntary code of practice, give it a statutory footing and make it binding in nature.

The whole thrust of the nitrates directive is to promote good agricultural practice with special emphasis on the management of fertilisers, livestock manures and slurries, especially with a view to protecting water quality. A number of things have been done in Ireland since the directive was adopted in 1991, namely, monitoring water quality; a whole range of measures to protect water quality against pollution by farming, including investment in farming, farm grant schemes, REP schemes and this code of practice.

We are now in the third phase of the nitrates directive which requires us to develop a specific action programme with a range of measures set out to protect water quality from pollution by farming. This programme of action has to include binding measures - regulations or statutory measures which are obligatory and not merely voluntary. It must be possible to monitor the effectiveness of these measures to demonstrate if water quality improves. More importantly it must show how agricultural practices have responded, changed and improved.

Even though the directive dates from 1991 it has been extensively clarified and elaborated on by judgments delivered by the European Court of Justice in recent years. Over the past five years we have been on shifting ground in regard to it as new features became apparent. The court judgments have added numerous developments on the original. Additional information on water also becomes available to us as more data, reports and analysis become available.

Another significant factor is the area of cross-compliance with European Commission funding of the Common Agricultural Policy. Continued funding has been made conditional on compliance by member states and individual farmers with the terms of the nitrates directive. The series of court judgments and the introduction of the cross-compliance requirement have changed the picture greatly and given increased urgency to the need to finalise an action programme which will satisfy the European Commission. The extent to which the terms of the directive have been clarified is strong. Last October, the most comprehensive judgment from the European Court of Justice was given against The Netherlands. In the last few weeks, Ireland has joined the list of member states that has judgments registered against it for failing to fully implement the nitrates directive. Any member state in such a situation must respond quickly and demonstrate to the Commission that it is taking the necessary measures to fully implement the directive in response to the court judgment. Otherwise, the Commission, in its role in ensuring EU legislation is implemented, is required to inform the court that the member state has not satisfied it in response to the judgment and can demand that a fine be imposed.

The fines in this case could be very large. There could also be a threat to CAP funding which would have serious financial implications as many schemes will soon be rolled into one single payment system. This would threaten the funds recouped by the Commission for the operation of CAP or to the individual farmer. The possibility of losing part, if not all, entitlements under CAP is serious. We must respond quickly and produce an action programme for Ireland which satisfies the Commission. The Commission will be the agency to decide whether Ireland has adequately implemented the directive in accordance with its terms. It is also in the position of seeking the imposition of fines or partial non-funding of CAP.

The two Departments published a draft for consultation of an action programme under the nitrates directive in December. All interested parties were invited to submit written comments on it. More than 70 submissions were received, most in the last week before the deadline, which are now being considered. The draft programme will be amended to reflect some of the comments received. An important feature in this is the Commission's comment on receipt of the draft programme which indicated the programme did not adequately implement the directive and that it needed to be strengthened in several important respects. These included slurry storage requirements, the periods during which spreading of slurry should be prohibited and the amount of slurry that can be spread per annum. Other features also needed to be addressed such as aspects of record-keeping and so forth.

Having issued the draft action programme for consultation in December, the written comments have been received from concerned Irish parties as well as the Commission. A number of Irish parties have had meetings with the Commission, including officials from the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Agriculture and Food and farming organisations. All groups have received the message that the draft action programme needs to be strengthened, quickly finalised and implemented. The action programme needs to be finalised, adopted and sent to the Commission before the end of June. There is also the issue of the derogation. The Government acknowledges the directive as it stands imposes a limit of 170 kg of organic nitrogen per hectare per annum. That is the limit on the amount of land spreading of slurry. The Government has given a commitment to seek a derogation for the land spreading of amounts up to 250 kg in appropriate circumstances. An application to the Commission for a derogation is required to enable farmers who need to operate to that level to do so. The application for the derogation will be submitted sometime in July after the adoption of the action programme. After that, part of the action programme will include binding measures and regulations. It is hoped to have the requirements and regulations that will apply to farmers made by the end of September. Guidance documents will go hand-in-hand with this with non-legal and easy-to-read notes for farmers making it clear what they will need to do.

It is important the directive is implemented sooner rather than later because the single payments system under CAP commences on 1 January 2005. From that date, Ireland needs to be in a position to demonstrate full compliance with the directive in order to ensure the continued funding of the CAP. It must also be clarified for individual farmers as to what they need to do to ensure their payments under CAP are secure. We are open to any questions the committee may wish to ask.

I thank the Chairman for organising the attendance of officials from both Departments and Mr. Sadlier for his presentation. Have the officials briefing notes they could give to the committee?

Am I correct in saying the nitrate directive is only one component of the action programme to be submitted to the Commission by the end of June and that it also includes the waste directive, the water framework, the dangerous substances in water directive?

Mr. Sadlier

It will be an action programme for the purpose of the nitrates directive but in developing the programme, the measures will also address requirements of other directives. They will not in all cases be additional measures. Possibly 90% of what will be done in the context of the nitrates directive will meet the needs of other directives.

Could Mr. Sadlier explain what is required to satisfy the EU court judgment? He mentioned the draft document we published, about which there was some controversy. The EU, in its submission, states it does not go far enough in some cases. I appreciate Mr. Sadlier may not be able to tell me this, but what does the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Minister think will satisfy the EU in meeting the requirements as laid down in the court judgment? Is he reasonably confident that when the documents are sent in June they will be accepted by the European Commission?

With regard to the single payment and the threat to funding, the EU can often take a long period to reply to such submissions. If it does not reply by the end of the year, has Mr. Sadlier any view on the position of the single farm payment? Can it be paid in the absence of agreement on the final document? Will we receive a decision from the EU by the end of this year?

Mr. Sadlier mentioned the issue of derogation. I am trying to visualise the appropriate derogation in the matter of the level of nitrates per hectare. How would he envisage making that case? Will it be on a regional basis? Is there a percentage breakdown of the land that would be suitable for a derogation? Some groups have pushed the concept of nitrogen-vulnerable zones rather than a whole-country approach and they make the argument that this would affect only 30% of farmers who would be affected by the proposals as they stand.

Ultimately, we all agree that water quality needs to be protected. We need to find out whether the measures taken are adequate to protect the quality of water without being an unnecessary burden on farmers. In many respects this should be a scientific fact, but it is hard for us to establish definite references. It should be quite easy to come up with a formula that satisfies the requirement to protect groundwater without being a burden on farmers. I know it will be a burden on some people no matter what, but it should not be an unnecessary burden.

Mr. Sadlier mentioned the code of practice, which the Minister has been waving around in recent weeks. If the code of practice, which was agreed in 1996, was put forward as a binding regulation, would this satisfy the demands of the EU and the court judgment?

I thank the officials, particularly Mr. Sadlier, for their presentation. When the final action plan is available, will there be scope for commentary prior to it being submitted? Will there be an interim period during which people may make their views known and opinions may be taken on board?

I fully accept the need to protect water quality and the environment in general. However, there seems to be shifting sands when it comes to the scientific views on what is necessary and desirable. Only this morning, I was looking at an article in the Irish Farmers’ Journal about the causes of blue baby syndrome. One set of scientific data says nitrates are a significant factor in this, while another says they are not. The most recent view appears to be that they are not. What is the basis of the scientific views on this? From whence is the scientific opinion derived? Much confusing and contradictory evidence is being put forward. Which scientific view is considered the final word?

I wish to raise the risk of penalties being imposed on those people who do not comply with the regulations. These penalties appear to be quite harsh. I appreciate the officials may not be able to respond to this, but will this be taken into account? There is a need for concern about how those penalties might be imposed if this should arise.

I welcome both delegations and thank Mr. Sadlier for his presentation. Alarm might be too strong a word, but this issue is certainly causing concern among the farming community. Members have already asked about the finalised action programme that must be submitted in June. There is much room for debate about the amount farmers are being asked to spend to comply with the current proposals. Farming is a changing industry and many farmers are leaving the area.

Deputy Upton mentioned a significant point, namely, the varying scientific evidence about the effects of nitrates on human health. My understanding some years ago was that our water quality was seriously affected. Now we are being told it is quite good. Of course we want to protect it. However, I have some issues with the time schedule for spreading slurry. The weather pattern should be considered. We have very scientific weather forecasting which can tell us what the weather will be up to a week in advance. Looking at the weather patterns over the last three or four years, especially over the winter, one can see that during any month there are considerable periods during which slurry can be spread. This is something that must be considered before farmers are put to the enormous cost of building extra storage facilities. The suggested level of 170 kg of organic nitrogen per hectare per annum would be detrimental to many of our very good farmers. A derogation would certainly be required in this case.

I am concerned about the whole approach to this issue, particularly in the matter of scientific evidence and the contradictions therein. I wish the officials well with their action programmes, but I must sound a warning about the issue of storage and about the proposed limit of 170 kg of organic nitrogen per hectare per annum.

I thank the committee for this meeting and I thank the Department officials for coming to address us. This is a very important issue in farming and its consequences will be far-reaching, particularly for small farmers. Why was the nitrate vulnerable zone approach not taken? Had it been taken, up to 1,000 fewer farmers would be affected by it. Some would say it was not taken because it would cause inconvenience but there is a wider context because as usual the farmers are a soft touch. I have studied the scientific aspect quite closely although I am not a scientist and like the EPA I saw that some of the counties affected by the 20 week hold period have no nitrate problems. Donegal is one of the counties with the best water quality so why should it, and other neighbouring counties, be hit with this 20 week period? If the scientific approach was taken it would soon be obvious that the problems exist in the south and east and that farming is not a major cause of the pollution.

Most towns and villages have no adequate sewage treatment facilities and too little emphasis has been put on replacing our sewerage. In many cases there is no sewerage whatsoever. If half as much emphasis was laid on replacing sewerage and installing it where it does not exist we would not need to be fighting and drawing up directives to impose more red tape on farmers. The current approach is crazy, with respect to the officials here today. I would like Donegal to be examined again to prove it is one of the worst counties and deserves a 20 week hold over period.

Mr. Sadlier

The committee raised a wide range of questions. The basis of the directive is to promote good agricultural practice as well as protecting water quality. Slurry should be spread in accordance with good agricultural practice. For example, it should be not be spread at any time during the non-growing season. If it is spread at a time when there is no crop fertiliser requirement the land is being used for waste disposal to no good purpose. That is not recycling, it is waste disposal. Organic fertiliser spread in a non-growing season when it will not be taken up by crops is virtually certain to be lost to the environment through the subsoil into ground waters, leaching into surface waters, fixing in the soil somehow, or lost to the atmosphere where nitrates go after conversion as nitrous oxide contributing to climate change. The storage period and non-spreading is linked to three factors. Slurry spreading should take place neither during the non-growing season nor when the ground is too wet or otherwise unsuitable, for example, if it is frozen or steeply sloping. The time period refers to the wet time when there is a real risk that after being spread the slurry will be washed off the surface of the land direct into water courses - the weather forecast service now available can make it clear whether heavy rain is likely within a day or two of the spreading. The third factor concerns safety. Weather patterns vary widely such that a dry year can be followed by completely different weather. Rather than aim for a minimum period based on one year's good weather one must allow for a time when an additional storage period may be required for a time to cater for bad weather. Having regard to those factors and rainfall statistics in growing seasons, the draft action programme more or less proposed an increasing storage period as one moves up through the country, mainly northwards, with four months in the south, 20 weeks in some places and a 24 week period in the most northerly areas. The EU Commission said the storage periods we proposed are not adequate and that the six month slurry storage period should apply throughout the greater part of the country.

There is probably no part of Ireland of which one could say with confidence that water quality is good and no further action is required by farmers or otherwise. Water quality in Donegal is in many ways better than in other counties and Ireland generally is quite good when compared with other member states but in a place like Donegal there are many indicators that water quality is far from perfect or acceptable. I do not have details at my fingertips for every county but according to some of the data we examined 50% of the group water schemes in Donegal and 20% of the public drinking water supply are contaminated by faecal coliforms. Donegal had a higher than average percentage of lakes which did not comply with the phosphorus standards. These discussions often focus on polluted waters but one of the requirements of these directives is that no deterioration should be allowed in any waters. In other words, water pollution should not be occurring. That has been a requirement for many years and has been restated in the 2000 water framework directive. The water quality targets of the water framework directive are to ensure that there is no deterioration in the quality of any waters. If quality is excellent now, it must be maintained in that condition. If the quality is poor, it must be improved. All waters must at least be improved to what is defined as good status by 2015.

In County Donegal there are approximately 300 survey sites. Water quality is surveyed by the EPA on a three year cycle at those 300 sites. When these surveys were started in the 1970s, 95 of those sites were classified as excellent and were awarded a Q5 rating. For the period 1997 to 2000, the count of excellent sites in County Donegal is 15. In the previous cycle, the number was 30. This is occurring throughout the country and is one of the most telling features of Ireland's water quality. Ireland is one of the few countries in the EU that has sites of such quality. These are sites in a pristine state which are an example of what a water quality site should be and very few member states have such sites. The Irish sites could be called treasures, but they are disappearing. Approximately 2% of the total survey sites in Ireland are regarded as top quality.

I am not suggesting that agriculture is the sole cause of water pollution. However, eutrophication of surface waters is identified as the main water pollution problem. Over-enrichment of surface waters by nutrients, phosphorous and nitrogen leads to plant growth, such as big weeds or microscopic algae. As the vegetation matter grows, it absorbs oxygen from the water. Even more oxygen is absorbed when the matter is decaying. As only tiny quantities of oxygen are dissolved in water, when it disappears, the suitability of the water to support life in its various forms goes rapidly downhill. Even with a small oxygen depletion, the most sensitive species disappear. The key to water pollution in Ireland is eutrophication of surface waters due to phosphorus and nitrogen entering the cycle. Up to 82% of nitrogen entering Irish waters comes from agriculture while 73% of phosphorous comes from agriculture. Agriculture is now the predominant cause and single source of water pollution.

I acknowledge that there are other sources of water pollution, such as discharges by industry and commercial premises, sewage treatment plants and septic tanks. However, farming is the biggest polluter in Ireland. If one wants to make another comparison in terms of biochemical oxygen demand on water, the total population of the Republic is 3.6 million people while the waste generated by animals is equivalent to a population of 60 to 70 million people. In terms of scale, the actual impact of farming is bigger than the impact of the human population.

The debate on the nitrates vulnerable zones approach went on for some time. The Government took the decision that the correct way to approach this was to deal with it within the overall context. It would not have been a good idea to attempt to draw lines on maps so as to treat one area one way and so forth. The approach adopted sought to avoid unnecessary and artificial divisions between farmers. Other approaches would have led to some farmers being put in competitor disadvantage vis-à-vis others. On water quality grounds and other aspects of environmental protection, the best approach is to apply appropriate environmental controls across the whole country. The nitrates directive has the possibility of having specific vulnerable zones and the requirement to take action in their regard built in and the waste directive requires every form of waste to be subject to proper management, control and regulation. The waste directive applies to the whole country. When all these directives are put together, justice would not be done if one attempted to break up these directives into packages to be complied with by farmers. In terms of simplicity and rationalising the whole policy with a meaningful and common sense package, one should do the business in one package.

Concerns were expressed about the financial impact on farming. This action programme and slurry storage requirements will have an impact on all farmers, not just those operating on the highest stocking level density. This will depend on the particular farm. However, some farmers already have adequate slurry storage and their expenditure requirement will be zero, particularly those who have expanded in recent times. The expenditure required on any individual farm will range from zero to whatever might be the upper limit, depending on scale. Let us take the worst case scenario. A farmer could have a certain housing capacity and storage capacity. If he requires additional storage capacity, it will depend on how the farm is set out. Will he simply require an additional tank or will it require starting from scratch?

This is quite serious. The biggest impact of these measures will be the requirement for expenditure by farmers on slurry storage capacity, and the knock-on effect that might have. A question was asked about quantifying the effects in terms of the 170 kg. limit on the amount being spread. The figures vary in this area. If, as the directive allows, everyone were to spread up to 170 kg. of organic nitrogen per hectare, that is taken to be roughly the equivalent of two cows per hectare. One cow is estimated to produce an output of 85 kg. of organic nitrogen in waste matter. Regarding the number of farmers operating such a stocking intensity, who would be affected by the directive and might seek a derogation, the estimates vary as to how many might be interested in or might need this. They range from 4,000 to perhaps 13,000 farmers. We will not know until the matter becomes operational.

One of the good aspects of this directive is that it is being implemented at a time when the CAP is being substantially revised. In the context of that revision and the single payment system, and shifting the CAP payments from production to an average of previous year's payments not linked to production, this means that farmers now have the option of making a range of choices about how they operate in the future, knowing what new CAP system will operate. As of now, without anything under the nitrates directive, farmers need to carry out quite a substantial review of their farm planning and management scheme. It is good that one is not making a plan now for one matter and facing complete revision again a few years later. Synchronising the two aspects is helpful.

I invite Michael O'Donovan to deal with possible penalties applying to farmers regarding single payments.

Mr. Michael O’Donovan

Deputy Upton raised the question of penalties. Under the single payment scheme, which will apply to virtually all farmers from next January, compliance with the nitrates directive will be one of the conditions of what is called cross-compliance. There will be a range of legislation, both national and European, with which farmers must comply as a condition of getting the single payment. When we have introduced our detailed regulations in order to implement the nitrates directive, then if a farmer is found not to be compliant, that will have an impact on the single payment. There is nothing we can do about that.

Deputy Timmins asked whether there is any risk that the single payment scheme would be jeopardised if the Commission does not respond to our proposals for an action programme by next January. One can never be certain, but from our contacts with the Commission, all the indications are that there will not be a problem. As Mr. Sadlier says, Ireland is not currently compliant with the nitrates directive. The European Court of Justice decided that. However, if we submit a credible proposal for an action programme between now and next January, it is unlikely there will be any adverse impact on the introduction of the single payment system. The Commission will allow a reasonable time to consider it, and for us to make whatever further amendments it deems necessary.

Taking the penalty issue a little further, it is not only the individual farmer who faces the risk of a penalty as a result of non-compliance. If, a year or two years on, Ireland is found not to have made adequate arrangements to implement the directive, it is not simply a question of a national fine arising from the European Court judgment; there is also the question of what is euphemistically called a "correction" on EU funding for the single payment system. Given that the single payment scheme will be EU-funded to the tune of well over €1 billion annually, the committee will appreciate that each possible percentage point correction on that level of EU funding would be serious. The Department of Agriculture and Food has had to very much bear this in mind in considering this issue. There is the question of continual co-funding of the four rural development measures - REPS, compensatory allowances, forestry and the farm retirement scheme. The Commission already showed its teeth last year in delaying for several months our proposals to amend the compensatory allowances scheme because of its concerns about what we were doing to implement the nitrates directive. It has been made clear to us at the highest level of the Commission that continued co-funding of the four measures hinges on the Commission, in particular on the Environment Commissioner, being satisfied with what Ireland is doing to implement the directive. We must also remember that we have co-funding of up to €5 billion up to the end of 2006, and we must think of the next round after that.

I thank the delegation for the information supplied so far. I am a farmer in the west of Ireland. A couple of years ago we were talking about phosphates, which were causing a problem with water at that time. Now the problem is nitrates. Is the phosphates situation in hand, or has it improved? I do not want to see water quality degenerating in years to come. We want the highest possible water standard. Regarding the standards used for testing water in Ireland, are they much higher than in any other country? I am told this is so and that the worst of our water would be considered of a high standard in other countries.

I am heartened by what the delegation said about the possibility of a derogation for farmers who exceed the 170 kg. of organic nitrogen because that would account for two cows per hectare and some dairy farmers would have many more than that. The delegation might elaborate on how one might seek such a derogation, if it is possible at this stage.

The most serious issue, namely storage capacity, was mentioned by Deputy Blaney. The nitrates directive has been in place for some time, and many people borrowed money to build sheds over that time. They were advised by the Department of Agriculture and Food, and by other officials and joint representatives, that storage over a certain number of weeks was needed. Everyone seemed agreed on that. Now the goal posts have changed. Every time they are changed for farmers, major costs are involved. It is not fair that burdens such as this should be again placed again on farmers. It is important that we be given the correct advice from the outset.

I agree with the delegation regarding the non-growing season because if one spreads slurry during that season it remains. Nothing grows during November and December, but some growth occurs in the subsequent months. If farmers were told, perhaps through the media, when conditions are suitable for spreading slurry, that would be better than fixing a 20-week period, after which it could well be raining heavily, and during which one would nevertheless have to spread the slurry. One might have had a dry month, during which time one did not spread slurry. That is how things work in practice. In years gone by, warning was always given regarding potato blight, for example. If farmers were advised during weather forecasts that the coming week, for example, looked suitable for spreading slurry, that would be more beneficial for farmers than having them incur extra costs for 20 weeks. This is not a very practical way to solve matters. The REP scheme has improved the situation. The storage capacity for the REPS is currently three months in our area. There is a huge cost involved in moving from 12 to 20 weeks.

We are currently talking about organic nitrogen. Is there a danger we will talk about bag nitrogen when this issue is solved? Has the problem of phosphates been put to bed?

I welcome the officers from the Department of Agriculture and Food and from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The officials outlined the deterioration in water quality over the past few years. Since the beginning of the REP scheme in 1994 one can see the physical improvements in rural Ireland, with cleaner farmyards and so on. Has there been an improvement in slurry storage with the introduction of the REP scheme?

None of the speakers has referred to spreading time, the 20 week close period and the non-growing season during winter. We have to accept that there is a non-growing season, but with the weather changes over the past four or five years the non-growing seasons might as well have been the summer months. This past February was a fine month for the time of year. Is there a possibility of adopting a common sense approach to the periods for spreading slurry, as outlined by Deputy Callanan?

What are the issues with regard to single payments? What submissions on the nitrates directive has the Commission made to the Department at this stage? What are the penalties if we do not comply with the directive? These are the questions I would like to have answered as other issues have been covered.

I also the welcome the officials from both Departments. This is a very serious issue, not just for the farming community but for the whole country. I am surprised at the language used by the departmental officials. We are facing a serious situation regarding the manner in which we discourage bad practices. It seems to me that the Departments are using the wicked witch approach, which is to beat the daylights out of farmers with a broom. We have to look at this from the farmers' perspective. The vast majority of farmers and the agricultural community are as interested in the environment and the quality of water as anyone else and are doing their utmost to preserve it.

Farmers have difficulties with a number of issues. For instance the agricultural advisory service, Teagasc, has recommended 210 grants, yet the Department claims there are only 170 grants. I am not sure if the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is wagging the tail of the Department of Agriculture and Food. There is confusion on this issue. To look at this directive from a European perspective, 14 out of the 15 EU member states have either ended up in court or have had to sign the binding agreement. That would indicate to the layman that there is something wrong with this directive.

Will Mr. Sadlier please define a non-growing season? This would be useful for farmers. It is crazy that farmers are forbidden to spread slurry in excellent weather and that there is a definite date when they can begin to do so. On that day, farmers will have to spread slurry even if there is torrential rain. They will be forced to do so under the conditions imposed by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Everyone will then complain of the noxious gases in the air. Common sense needs to be exercised by the farming community and the Departments involved.

Mr. Sadlier should be made aware that farmers do not regard slurry spreading as a matter of waste disposal. They regard slurry as a very valuable source of fertiliser which reduces their costs in the production of grassland. They will use it wisely and will not dispose of it in the manner suggested by Mr. Sadlier in his presentation. Does he not accept that the Department needs to look at storage requirements in a post-Fischler era? Many farmers are now being driven off the land. A farmer who has 100 acres of land and 80 cattle does not require the same amount of storage as a farmer with 100 cattle and 80 acres.

These issues should be addressed in the context that farmers now operate a longer grazing season and that the climate has changed significantly in Ireland. As previous speakers indicated, there were excellent climate conditions this past January and February. According to Joe Duffy on "Liveline", trees were actually budding and some birds had built nests in January. Everything now seems to have gone haywire, and not just in the Departments of Agriculture and Food and Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

The most recent survey on water quality of which I am aware is that done by Laois County Council. In that survey, 99.81% of the water sampled met the required levels. With figures like that, why must the entire community suffer the rigorous approach proposed by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government? In other countries such as Britain, 250 kg. is acceptable. If that is acceptable in Northern Ireland how can farmers over the Border accept 170 kg.? Should we not be considering an all-Ireland approach to this problem? Mr. Sadlier spoke about the evolution of the directive. This indicates to me that he was suggesting that as a result of procrastination by both Departments and the failure to take action at an earlier date, farmers must suffer more severe measures.

Many of the issues about which I wanted to speak have been addressed. It is important that we get this right and that agreements are reached in the best interests of the country and the farming community, which is under pressure. I would be interested to know why the Department of Agriculture and Food would not accept the recommendation of its own advisory board of 210 kg.

Good farming practice is in everybody's interest including farmers. I share a farm with a bank manager and it is in both our interests that we engage in good farming practice. Essentially, Irish farmers wish to engage in good practice. I have a problem and I am picking up the point made by the last speaker, namely that these directives have been around since 1991. All of us, not just the Departments, were somewhat negligent in not ensuring that these matters were progressed. To take up a point made by Deputy Callanan from Galway, many farmers have improved farmyards, expended money, drawn grants and received planning permission to meet the by-laws of the planning conditions set out by local authorities. In many instances these are now inadequate. If we had picked up the ball on these directives that type of expenditure could have been obviated. I am sharing the blame around. Is there a single scientific basis or is there a multiplicity thereof for coming to those conclusions? I realise we are all between a rock and a hard place, as the saying goes - if we do not do it we will be in trouble and if we do there will be some problems.

The national interest must be protected. We must go forward from there. The single payments issue must be protected. That brings me to the question of what exactly the derogation will be. How long will this take to negotiate? Will we be told within a year or in two, three or four years? If it is two or four years time, when will the penalties coming in next January be applied? If we are seeking a derogation the penalties cannot and should not, in justice, apply until the derogation is finalised. I would like to hear about the implications of any derogation.

Good farming practice does not mean one farms according to the calendar. It prescribes farming when the weather conditions are right and good or appropriate for what is being done. I have some difficulty in accepting the timescale that book farming is fitted into - the 16, 20 or 24 weeks. In some years these times apply but in others they do not. There is a need for flexibility. Local authorities require a full concrete tank. Is there not a cheaper method of slurry retention for the longer period? I would contend there is. Local authorities are now coming in with landfill sites involving under-layering for liquid storage. The problem would be much more difficult, compared to slurry, if such liquid leaked into the waterways. I am asking for that relative point to be considered because it will impact on the cost factor of what some farmers may have to do.

I want to pick up a point on dealing with the land application. As I read the two lines, they mean the additional materials to land, whether by spreading on the surface, injection, placing below the surface or mixing the surface layers. Lateral spreading is coming to an end. I know there are representatives from farming organisations present who do not wish me to say that, but we must face reality together. My contention is that within five to seven years lateral spreading of slurry will not be tolerated. I want a clear view on this from the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Agriculture and Food. It is happening throughout Europe and if we are to accept uniformity through Europe - and that includes us - it will happen here. Could the Department tell me from the knowledge and experience at its disposal how it can absolutely state that run-off from land, from lateral spreading, would only be the equivalent of the injection of slurry? I fail to see how the two can be equated. Some farmers are using the injection system or stitching into the land, as some people call it. There is a machine that will do this. Nobody can say there is the same level of pollution from slurry that is stitched or injected into the ground as from lateral spread. First, there is not the environmental aspect from the smell etc. Why are these linked? I cannot accept it.

I mentioned the aerobic digester option before. It was said this could not be done. Nonetheless, it is being practised widely around this country. If one picks up any organ such as the Irish Farmer’s Journal, one sees it advertised every week. I would strongly urge that we, the Department and the farming organisations consider the aerobic digester option, because that is what will ultimately happen. If we are going to ask farmers to expend money to put up expensive buildings, tanks etc., maybe the final solution is an aerobic digester. Men in my own parish are practising the extraction of the methane gas. This happens in many places around the country. It is unacceptable to say the system does not work.

Let us take the cost of farm waste from poultry, pigs, cattle, sheep and the industrial waste from fish processing plants ——

Will the Senator please confine his remarks to nitrates?

I am, Chairman. A short-term view is being taken of the system and we should go the long-term route. This option should be considered. Under the heading of definition, process form is dealt with. Nobody can tell me pellet form has a pollution impact equivalent to lateral spread.

Coming back to the subject of nitrates, as the Chairman has rightly directed, I have asked about derogation. We need derogation, but we need to know when it might be introduced. I do not expect a definite answer today, but I want an indication. It is imperative that we know whether there will be linkage between the penalties and the derogation. It is important that farmers leave here knowing that.

The Chairman spoke about spreading slurry on hills and so on. This causes problems and brings us back to the question of land utilisation. Both Departments should pick up the message which I have already given to the farming organisations and about which I have spoken here. We must examine the matter because, as Mr. Sadlier pointed out, there will be changes in the post-Fischler era arising from the directives.

Are there any supplementary questions?

Is there a uniform system of testing throughout the EU?

We will get that answer for the Senator in a moment. Are there any further supplementary questions which we can take together?

I want to ask a question and make a point about my own county. For the past number of years there has been a debate about developing sewerage schemes in seven villages. Dungarvan already has a sewerage scheme. Development has been stopped in those villages due to lack of facilities. The statistic that 82% of pollution is due to farming is hard to believe when only one town in County Waterford has a treatment plant. If the schemes were completed elsewhere that statistic would change considerably. That which is entering our rivers from town sewers is having a far bigger impact than is recognised. I would also like to know how many countries in Europe have signed up to this directive.

Can Mr. Sadlier give any indication of what is needed to meet the EU requirement on quantity and storage?

I would like to know the comparison between farming and non-farming related pollution in Templemore. In 1989, the council made an application to the then Department of the Environment for a new sewerage scheme. That is still not up and running and it is now 2004. In the interim, every time there was heavy rain in the town the sewerage system could not cope and the waste went directly into the River Suir. That cannot be equated with anything that has happened in the farming sector. The Department stood back and watched that happen and it will not be resolved until 2005 at the earliest.

I feel that the Department has looked at certain aspects of the scientific facts, but not at all of them. While I agree there may be lakes and rivers in Donegal which are being continually polluted, pollution levels in the county are minuscule compared to other counties in the south and east of the country. Nonetheless, we are being asked to provide 20 weeks of storage.

Is it a fact that if the phosphate was taken out of washing powder the quality of water would immediately improve by 10%?

Mr. Sadlier

Phosphorous from washing powder is an area where I am glad to report considerable success. The detergents industry entered a voluntary agreement with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government in 1999 to phase out the use of phosphate-based detergents. The target set was that by the end of 2002, 95% of phosphate-based detergents would be phased out. As far as we are aware, that target has been met. The bigger producers have more or less eliminated these detergents and the Department is continuing to chase the remaining 5-10% of the total market, which is provided by small suppliers.

Many questions were raised and I will not be able to answer them all. The directive applies to all countries as it is the law since 1991. It has been clarified by court judgements over the years, with ambiguities removed and areas clarified where member states thought they had discretion. We are now in a different phase in implementing the nitrates directive. I expect there will be a more vigorous and consistent enforcement of the directive by the European Commission across all of the EU. These court cases have shown the determination of the Commission to have the nitrates directive implemented and to have uncertainties removed. To date, only Denmark has received a derogation, which is the only experience of a precedent in this issue. That derogation took a long time to negotiate and if Ireland applies for the derogation this July, it will probably be two years before it is granted. In the interim, no farmer will be required to reduce operations.

The Commission wants to see a clear programme of action and timetable for putting things in place. Some of the committee members spoke about delays in implementing the directive. We are required to do what the Commission and the European Court of Justice tell us we should have done in 1992. However, we do expect a derogation which will take some time. The only other member state that applied for a derogation was the Netherlands. That was given much consideration before being withdrawn because it was clear it would not be granted. The Netherlands is again in negotiation with the Commission on that. In Denmark, the mandatory slurry storage period on all farms is a minimum of six months. The recommendation is that one should have spare capacity to cater for unexpected situations and adverse conditions. The practice is nine months slurry storage capacity.

Phosphate pollution is not sorted out and phosphorus is regarded here as the driver of water pollution and eutrophication. The nitrates directive addresses two water quality problems, namely eutrophication in surface waters and nitrates in drinking water. It is now becoming clear that eutrophication in surface waters is the greater problem. The nitrates directive requires us to address waters affected by eutrophication due to nitrates from agriculture. A recent judgment in a case taken by the Commission against France in 2002 noted that eutrophication occurs only where there is the correct balance between nitrogen, sunlight, various other ingredients and trace elements. The environment does not behave in such a text book black and white manner. The directive requires us to address water pollution from farming and, whether caused principally by phosphorus or nitrates, this occurs only when both are present in adequate quantities so one must address waters that are eutrophic due to nitrates or to phosphorus where farming is a significant contributor. The 2002 judgment was a major extension of the scope and meaning of the directive.

It would be inappropriate for the Irish Government or its officials to comment on other member states but the UK has neither applied for nor achieved derogation. Therefore under the nitrates directive and the law as it is, a limit of 170 kgs. should apply throughout the UK in the absence of a derogation. We would not be led or guided by the example of the UK and we expect that Northern Ireland will follow more or less the same path we are taking. That is a matter for the Northern Ireland authorities but they have published a discussion document and reports which are clearly following the same path as ours. A few years ago they published draft regulations which propose six months storage, connected to new developments. I expect that the whole of Northern Ireland would have a six month slurry storage requirement consistent with grading storage periods from south to north here. That is only an opinion.

A member state must apply for the derogation within which one must specify the arrangements that must be in place for an individual farmer to operate. That is part of the process of applying for the derogation and the terms. We have already established this in our code of practice laid down since 1996, which will provide the basis of our action programme and our regulations, and we expect the Commission to be broadly satisfied with this. The specific detail remains to be developed along the way, particularly with anything new that might have emerged in the interim. The code of practice clearly sets out the picture we must advance.

There are possibilities for cheaper forms of storage in some areas; it does not need to be a concrete tank everywhere. One idea being promoted is an earthen bank, a dugout.

Is it lined?

Mr. Sadlier

It can be lined or unlined. Several exist and research is being carried out in this area. A working group has been established, led by the Department of Agriculture and Food and including representatives of several agencies and the scientific and technical experts from our Department, to look at these banks. We await the conclusions which will be important. It seems there are areas in which an earthen bank will be appropriate but an earthen bank, an area dug out of the ground, will not be a cheap or easy solution in all areas. There are some areas where the subsoil does not provide the necessary protection. It can work where the appropriate circumstances are met.

In almost any area of medicine or science, there are varying opinions. There is no topic of any kind on which one can achieve unanimous scientific opinion and it is the role of the legislators to make decisions. They must sift the information and weigh up the factors involved. The nitrates directive is legislation adopted by the members of the European Community. Whatever was in it was agreed at the time and adopted as law. Our task is to respond and implement it adequately.

REPS has definitively improved farms. The practices in and condition of individual farms have improved quite significantly through participation in REPS. There are reports in some areas of a link between improvement in water quality and a high uptake of REPS. The Lough Derg and Ree area in the report on the Shannon catchment indicated that. It is difficult to precisely quantify the relationship between REPS and improved water quality but one can see a connection between them. REPS has also improved practice on farms.

The directive allowed for two types of derogation. It sets a limit of 170 kgs. but during the first four year action programme a member state, without applying for anything, may decide to operate a limit up to 210 kgs., if it wishes, as a transitional feature. At any time before, during or after that period it may apply for a derogation to operate a higher amount such as 230 kg. or 250 kg. The judgment against the Netherlands was delivered in October and it stated that the 210 kg. transitional possibility is based on a member state adopting an action programme by the end of 1995 at the latest. This means that a member state's first four year action programme must have been established and operational from December 1995 to 1999. However, this 210 kg. transitional amount is not available to Ireland. We can infer from the judgment that Ireland has granted itself a derogation for a 12 year period without reference to anybody. The directive now needs to be operated at 170 kg. unless a derogation is granted by the Commission. The clarification of the 210 kg. transitional amount in a four year programme only became available in October 2003.

I thank Mr. Sadlier and the officials from the Departments of Agriculture and Food and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for this informed session.

Top
Share