JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD debate -
Thursday, 3 Feb 2005

Nitrates Directive: Presentation.

Chairman

I welcome Mr. John Sadlier, principal officer, and Mr. Tim Morris, assistant principal, from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I also welcome Mr. Michael O'Donovan, principal officer, and Mr. Tom Quinlivan, agriculture inspector, from the Department of Agriculture and Food who are here with us to discuss the nitrates directive.

Before I ask them to commence the presentation I advise them that members of the committee have absolute privilege, but that 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 or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Mr. Sadlier from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will begin the presentation.

Mr. John Sadlier

Thank you. I am a principal officer in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, water quality section. The simplest and most useful thing would be to begin by setting out the current position.

The key issue at this time is the nitrates action programme which must be established and implemented here in order to implement the nitrates directive. The European Court of Justice issued the judgment against Ireland on 11 March 2004 that Ireland had failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive, mainly by failing to establish and implement a nitrates action programme as required by the directive.

To rectify that situation, following quite an extensive process of public consultation with interested parties, including the main farming organisations, and the services of a mediator arbitrator, Mr. Denis Brosnan, a nitrates action programme was finalised and sent to the European Commission on 22 October 2004. That was followed a few weeks later by an application to the Commission for a derogation from the limits set by the directive with regard to land spreading of organic livestock manure.

The Commission has formally responded to the nitrates action programme by way of letter. Its letter is dated 22 December 2004. The letter is by way of formal notice in the nature of legal proceedings leading for an application for fines to be imposed against Ireland if it does not respond satisfactorily in the view of the Commission. Therefore, we have moved into the second stage of legal proceedings. As a result of a first judgment recorded against Ireland in March 2004, the Commission is taking the position that Ireland has not responded adequately to the judgment and it, the Commission, is now in the process of applying to the European Court of Justice for fines to be imposed against Ireland. The key issue at stake is to establish and implement an action programme which satisfies the Commission that Ireland is fully compliant with the nitrates directive and the court judgment. We have a period of three months, that is, until 22 March 2005, to respond formally to the Commission.

To assist the committee, we have sent it a brief summary of the main items the Commission finds inadequate in the action programme.

Chairman

It has been circulated to all the members.

Mr. Sadlier

There are four major points. First, the Commission highlights above all else that the action programme is a strategy statement or policy document which has not yet been converted into law. Therefore, by itself it does not impose any binding obligations on any parties. This is the overriding comment with regard to all measures in the programme. Until such time as the statement is converted into statutory obligations, Ireland has not fully established and implemented its programme.

The other main substantive points at issue are that the Commission wants to see longer prohibited periods specified in the action programme for the land-spreading of livestock manure. Consequent on that and to reflect the longer prohibited periods, it wants to see longer storage capacity provided for on farms. The Commission wishes to see a strengthening of the action programme on nutrient management planning and nutrient controls on farms. The Commission's view is that the two major objectives of the directive are to protect water quality against pollution by nitrates from farm livestock manure and to achieve better practice in nutrient planning and nutrient management on farms.

There are a number of other points which the Commission mentioned in its letter, some of which are quite technical in nature. I will cite a sample of some of the points made. The Commission agrees in principle that Ireland can be subdivided into different zones as proposed in the programme and that the same obligations need not necessarily be applied throughout the country, taking into account the differing soil and climatic conditions which warrant different treatment. The Commission is not happy that the zones as specified in the programme are the most appropriate ones and it wishes to see them rectified. It considers that some of the commencement dates set in the programme are too late and that implementation should be faster.

On the question of manure storage capacity for pig-rearing units which is quite different from dairy cattle slurry, the Commission wants pig farms in all cases to have a six months' storage capacity for manure. It points out that some of the supporting documents being prepared by the Department such as guidance documents for farmers and the regulations, are not yet finalised. The Commission asks that these documents be finalised and on the table.

In the view of the Commission, our references in the programme which allow farmers to continue to spread up to 250 kg of nitrogen compared to the 170 kg set by the directive is a self-granted derogation which it finds unacceptable. This would fly in the face of the directive and the court judgment. This provision will need to be revisited by the Department.

The Commission wants wider buffer zones specified when land-spreading manure or chemical fertilisers in a field as to the distance to be kept from water courses, be they rivers or lakes or bore holes, to provide a higher level of protection for the water.

The final point is that the Commission wants a more precise definition of areas and items and the incorporation of other practices to help the implementation of other directives such as the emissions ceilings and the waste directive. More precise definition is requested in respect of where the action programme states that slurry should not be spread on sloping ground or steeply sloping ground. The Commission wants the angle of slope or some more specific criteria to be specified.

This is a broad summary of the current position. It now falls to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, in consultation with the Minister for Agriculture and Food and other interested parties, to consider the points of the letter and, in the less than two months remaining, to develop a substantive and formal response. I am happy to follow with any discussion or questions the committee may wish to pursue.

Deputy Naughten

With the agreement of the committee I suggest that questions be addressed to both Departments where relevant.

It is generally accepted that environmental factors will form a major dimension of European agricultural policy in the future, both in respect of the nitrates directive and the Kyoto Protocol. It is critical that a sensible approach be adopted to demonstrate that we are not specifically focusing on farmers or trying to scapegoat them on this issue.

It should be acknowledged that the code of good farming practice in many instances will address the concerns being raised about many of these environmental issues. I have some specific questions. There is no doubt that this directive will have significant implications for the pig, poultry and dairy sectors. How do the Departments see this being addressed in respect of those sectors? Will the Departments comment on the fact that based on the scientific research which seems to be one of the issues up for discussion with the Commission, only about 8% in total of the country is vulnerable to the leaching of nitrates? Why therefore are these measures being extended to include the whole country when only a small and specific amount is land is vulnerable? For example, scientific research relating to County Roscommon has been carried out by the local authority on the catchment management of Lough Ree and Lough Derg which shows there is not a problem with the leaching of nitrates into the water courses from agriculture, yet there will be a significant restrictions in that county. There are many similar examples throughout the country.

Has the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government had any discussions with local authorities regarding the planning levies being imposed by local authorities because this directive will have a considerable impact on farmers who will be required to install additional storage capacity? Why is the spreading of slurry being treated differently to that of land-spreading of sludge from waste water treatment plants? What action is being taken on the issue of waste water treatment plants contributing to this nitrates problem? It seems to be a significant part of the problem, much more so than the issue of agricultural waste. Will the Department supply the committee with a copy of the Environmental Protection Agency map showing the specific problems of the pollution of water courses? This could be tied with the urban areas in the vicinity because the problems are very similar. Has the issue of prohibited periods for the spreading of slurry which are decided by calendar been discussed at EU level? Given Ireland's climate type, it does not make sense to have prohibited periods which are decided by the calendar. There can be times of the year which were traditionally regarded as times when slurry could not be spread and which are in fact the most opportune. The summer months may often experience deplorable weather and it can be impossible to spread slurry.

Deputy Upton

I thank Mr. Sadlier and his colleagues for the presentation and for the summary of the main points of the European Commission document. Will the delegation clarify if the documentation submitted was based on the advice given by Teagasc on pure scientific evidence and that this is the submission which has been rejected and refuted by the Commission? Where does that leave us in terms of progressing our discussions with the EU if we have already formulated a very strong scientific case?

Even at this late stage, how does Ireland compare with other European countries with a comparable situation, considering we have not implemented the directive? Can any succour be taken from the case of other countries in terms of some modification or improvement on what the Commission is now requesting?

What is the situation regarding fines? It is my understanding that Ireland has a deadline of 22 March to give a formal response. If after that date we fail to provide a suitable response that satisfies the Commission, will the fines kick in at that stage?

The Commission accepts an appropriate case can be made on the question of zones. How difficult would it be to implement the reformed zones which the Commission recommends?

Deputy Blaney

I welcome the delegation to discuss this very serious issue. Like the previous speaker I also have an issue with the fines and when they come into play. If they are introduced, will the local authorities also be liable to them? Based on recent newspaper reports, some local authorities, including mine, are supposedly part of the problem by not implementing sewerage schemes despite the granting of funding over many years. I am pleased to hear that zones are now being considered. Like one of the previous speakers I have seen one of the EPA maps showing the vulnerable zones. Those zones, which contain most nitrogen, are large population centres such as Dublin, the south and east of the country and also in areas where intensive farming takes place. As one who comes from the north, I welcome the zones. Those who are causing the problem should deal with it accordingly.

What is the status of the 250 kg derogation? Does this remain or has it been reduced to 170 kg? I would like to get a copy of Mr. Sadlier's presentation in writing as it contained much information and it was hard to digest it all.

Mr. Sadlier

If I may, I will take some of those points at least. Possibly the most important point for me to emphasise is that the nitrates directive is very specific and focused on dealing only with one topic, which is preventing water pollution by nitrates from farming. It might give the false impression that only agriculture is being addressed for water pollution, which of course is not the case. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, local authorities, the EPA and many other agencies are pursing a very wide programme of measures generally and particularly now in the context of the water framework directive to ensure that water pollution from every source is addressed. We must take an inventory of and address all activities that could impact on the quantity or quality of water or on the natural state of aquatic ecosystems. This inevitably means that all sources must be addressed, which is the case anyway.

To put this in context, the EPA reports clearly quantify the pollution load coming from farming. The EPA reports on water state that probably the biggest environmental pollution problem in Ireland is the pollution of our inland waterways by utrification which is caused by excess inputs of nutrients such a phosphorous and nitrogen. The largest source of these nutrients is farming. The EPA report indicates that approximately 73% of phosphorous and 82% of nitrogen entering our waters come from agriculture. Clearly agriculture is a huge activity in the water quality world. However, all other sources are also being addressed.

On fines, we have received a letter of formal notice of the Commission's intention. It has issued a statement that it considers our action programme to be deficient and asked us to consider it and respond to it by 22 March. If the Commission is not satisfied with the response it receives, it can elevate that action to a reasoned opinion, which would be the next stage of legal proceedings and the final stage before going to court. Theoretically the Commission could serve a reasoned opinion on Ireland before the end of March. While that is probably unlikely, it could happen that quickly. We have two or three months to respond to that and if the response is again deemed to be inadequate, the Commission could then decide, without reference to us, good, bad or indifferent, to apply directly to court for fines to be imposed. That is how the process could move.

Then, of course, the case would need to be heard. Inevitably there would be an exchange of pleadings which itself takes time. The process starts with a letter of formal notice and response. If the Commission is not happy, it serves a reasoned opinion to which we have a chance of response. That would then be it and the Commission could apply to court to apply fines. Theoretically if matters moved quickly, the Commission could decide in October of this year to apply to the court for fines.

The application of the nitrates programme to the whole territory of Ireland was a decision taken by Government and has been enshrined in legislation to send a clear signal. It was an important part of the implementation of the nitrates directive in Ireland. The Government publicly stated position is that there is a need for strengthening the protection of the environment in the agricultural sector. We need to promote good farming practice and we need to support this promotion of good agricultural practice with statutory requirements. We have had a voluntary code of practice since 1996. However, a voluntary code is merely a voluntary code and disregarding it is not offence unless a specific offence can be proved in law, which is extremely difficult when dealing with water quality. It is often said that at present in law no "rules of the road" apply to agricultural pollution.

It is, of course, an offence to cause pollution, which, however, requires a very high level of evidence and proof. It is quite difficult for a public authority to either have sufficient evidence to prove that a particular person because of a particular activity on a particular day did something which caused the pollution to occur at a particular point in a river. A very high level of proof is required. It can be adduced in certain circumstances involving a clear leakage from a tank or other source. As often as not there are practices, for example, spreading slurry on land when it is very wet or when heavy rain is forecast, where it is virtually certain that almost all of that will end up in a watercourse. The spreading of slurry on land in the most inappropriate of circumstances is not an offence in itself. It is an activity which clearly creates a very high risk of causing water pollution. It is like drunk driving or speeding. However, until the pollution occurs, no offence has been committed.

This is the purpose of the whole process of providing a statutory basis to promote and achieve good farming practice and to be able to back it up by making it an offence to carry out activities which create a high risk of causing water pollution. It would be foolish — we would stand accused of adopting a nonsensical approach — to try to impose regulations which address only nitrogen from slurry. We need to address the fact that phosphorous in inland waters is the cause of this country's biggest water quality problem. Phosphorous comes from the same source — slurry. Eutrophication can take place as a consequence of the presence of high levels of phosphorous or nitrogen in water. Drinking water sources, groundwater and wells can be polluted by substances which come from agricultural and other sources, such as domestic septic tanks.

There is a need to achieve a higher level of good practice on farms in all areas. I do not refer only to areas in which there is pollution. In the current circumstances, there is probably a higher emphasis on protecting waters which are not polluted than on dealing with areas which are polluted. The EU water framework directive which was enacted in 2000 has two clear and unequivocal environmental objectives. The first objective is to oblige member states to ensure there is no deterioration in the status of any waters. If waters are in excellent condition, they should be maintained in excellent condition. If they are in good, poor, moderate or bad condition, no further deterioration must be allowed to occur. The second objective is that all waters which are not of "good" status — the second best ranking — must be brought up to that status, at least, by 2015. Under the EU's clear objectives, all sources must be addressed.

I invite my colleague from the Department of Agriculture and Food, Mr. Michael O'Donovan, to speak. If either of us does not cover any point, I will be happy to return to it.

Mr. Michael O’Donovan

I will start by speaking about the issue of fines. Mr. Sadlier has clearly explained the legal process. The fines will be substantial if they are introduced, but they are not the only problem. Another form of sanction which relates more to the Department of Agriculture and Food is available to the Commission which holds a strong hand in the discussions. The sanctions relate to the funding of the CAP rural development measures which include REPS compensatory allowance, forestry measures and the early retirement scheme. The measures which are worth €4.6 million during the course of the current rural development plan are funded by the EU to the tune of between 50% and 75%.

Payments under the rural development measures are predicated on farmers following good farming practice. The Commission has declared that Ireland does not, by definition, have good farming practice because it has not put in place an action programme specifying a level of such practice, for example, in respect of the spreading of organic fertilisers or organic waste. We do not have a problem in that regard, but we will have to go to the Commission later this year to propose an amendment to the current CAP rural development plan.

Our proposal will relate to at least two issues. The first issue is the use of modulated funds, which are funds that have been transferred from the direct payments pillar to the second pillar following the Fischler reforms. The second issue is the amending of measure A of REPS to preserve the level of payment to farmers with commonage. The Commission has indicated that it will not be able to allow such an amendment to proceed if Ireland is deemed, by the middle of the year, not yet to be implementing the nitrates directive correctly.

The Commission has also said that when negotiations start next year on the next round of rural development funding, for the period between 2007 and 2013, Ireland's position will be extremely difficult if it is not in compliance with the nitrates directive. It is clear that the Department of Agriculture and Food does not welcome what has happened — it is disappointed that the action programme that was submitted in October was found to be deficient. That decision has serious implications for the funding of the CAP rural development measures. In 2002, the Commission blocked an amendment to the compensatory allowances measure for some months, until Ireland could give firmer assurances on the nitrates directive. The Commission has indicated clearly that Ireland is facing a similar set of circumstances this year. It is possible that worse is to come next year.

I would like to respond to the various questions asked by members of the committee. Deputy Naughten asked about the pig, poultry and dairy sectors. The nitrates directive has potentially significant implications for those areas. The vast bulk of farmers are operating below the level of 170 kg of organic nitrogen that the directive will require. The directive will not present most farmers with great difficulties. If their storage facilities are inadequate some of them will have the option, in the aftermath of decoupling, of reducing their stocking levels to suit their storage capacities. That will not effect their levels of direct payment, which have been established.

More intensive operators in the pig, poultry and dairy sectors will face some challenges. Ireland has sought to address such challenges by making a proposal for derogation. The Commission has said that while it notes the derogation proposal, it will not examine it until the action programme has been agreed. The proposal and the programme cannot proceed in tandem. More intensive farmers will face some waste storage costs, which could be substantial in some cases. They may have to secure outlets for the spreading of some of the organic material they produce.

The Commission has welcomed the Government's decision to take a "whole-territory" approach, which was explained by Mr. Sadlier. The Commission has told us we would be in a worse position if we had not chosen such an approach, which might seem strange.

Deputy Upton asked whether the action programme was based on the advice of Teagasc. I assure her that it was. Mr. Brosnan consulted Teagasc, as well as the farming organisations, which presented their own scientific thinking, and other stakeholders. The action programme was based on Mr. Brosnan's conclusions which were accepted by the Government which decided to propose an action programme based on them. Teagasc was one source of input, but not the only one.

I was asked how Ireland compares with other comparable member states. Ireland is the only member state that does not have an action programme. That does not mean the Commission is happy with other member states' action programmes. The process outlined by Mr. Sadlier relates to law as much as it does to science. Ireland is facing a court action because it has not fulfilled its legal obligations. The fine print of how we fulfil our obligations will be a matter of science, which will be a central element of the response we give to the Commission at the end of March.

Deputy Blaney asked about the derogation, which is on hold. The Commission will not examine the proposal until it is satisfied with the progress being made with the action programme.

I think Mr. Sadlier and I have responded to most of the questions that were asked. If we have not done so, we will be happy to discuss the relevant matters further.

Deputy Naughten

I would like to raise some matters to which I referred earlier. Is it true that 8% of the country, at most, is vulnerable to the leaching of nitrates? Can the departmental officials comment on the local authority planning levies and the action being taken by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in that regard? Why is the spreading of slurry being treated differently to the spreading of sludge from waste water treatment plants, given that both of them involve land-spreading? I also asked about the use of a calendar to determine the periods in which the spreading of slurry is prohibited. I asked the officials to furnish a copy of the EPA map that specifically highlights urban areas and those places where there are problems with eutrophication and pollution.

Senator Scanlon

I am confused. Does the Commission accept the zoning of Ireland? Does it consider Ireland as a single zone?

Mr. Sadlier

The Commission is happy to see Ireland subdivided into different zones. The most southerly part of the country has the shortest prohibited period, but as one moves north to wetter, colder regions, the storage and prohibited period lengthens. While there are quite a number of factors which influence what is the most appropriate prohibited period, the key is crop requirement. An essential feature of the directive is to promote better nutrient management on farms, which means livestock manure should be treated and dealt with as a fertilizer rather than as a waste. If it is spread on land at inappropriate times, it has the double disadvantage of creating a high risk of water pollution while the material is wasted as its nutrient value is not recovered. It is key in defining a prohibited period to say the spreading of chemical fertilizer bought from a co-operative or factory or livestock manure during certain periods is an absolute waste of money and liable only to cause environmental pollution. There can be no crop response or additional yield from spreading at certain times.

Depending on the crop and other factors, the scientific argument points to a period between September and January-February. Spreading fertilizers in October, November and December is not beneficial for most crops, including grass. No farmer would buy fertilizer in a bag and spread it on land during those months and the same should apply to livestock manure. Livestock manure should be treated as a fertilizer to ensure the maximum amount of the nutrient value can be used for crop purposes and the land is not simply used as a dumping ground for a material which is being managed carelessly. While the above point is key, there are other factors involved which affect the fringes. If there is a particular time when a crop response is possible but there is also a very high risk of causing water pollution or other environmental damage, it should be considered whether spreading should be avoided. The key criterion is crop requirements.

Sewerage treatment plants are an actual or potential source of water pollution and thousands of millions of euro have been spent in Ireland in the past decade to upgrade them, particularly in coastal areas where there are large urban centres, but also in inland areas. Public information is necessary. The EPA reports regularly on the impact of sewerage treatment plants on water quality and carries out audits of them. It highlights and names on a regular basis those plants which are not being managed adequately by local authorities. The area is not neglected. Plants are under constant scrutiny and the level of control being applied to them is almost certain to be strengthened considerably by the terms of the Water Services Bill currently before the Houses. To keep things in perspective, it should be noted that the pollution load from slurry from agriculture is significantly greater than the pollution load from the total human population. While the human population is five million, the pollution load from animals is approximately equivalent to a human population of 64 million.

The maps produced by the EPA are available for public information. There are no secret maps and no information is withheld. An especially useful document is being produced and was published in draft in December. Under the water framework directive, we have had to prepare——

Chairman

Sorry, but there is a vote in the Dáil. Deputy Crawford will take the Chair to allow Senators to ask questions. If any other Deputy wishes to stay it is up to himself or herself. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Crawford took the Chair.

Deputy Naughten

Can Mr. Sadlier postpone giving those answers and take questions from other members until we return?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Crawford)

In the interests of time, we will move on to the questions of Senators.

Senator Coonan

I thank the officials from both Departments for attending to brief the committee on the current state of affairs on the nitrates directives. It is important to record that the vast majority of members of the farming community are as concerned as the rest of society about the environment, water quality and what is best for the country. I declare my interest as a farmer. While Mr. Sadlier has dealt with many of the questions I would have wished to ask, perhaps he can elaborate on some of his answers.

The Brosnan commission was established to examine these matters and both Departments have considered them on that basis. What is the nature of the working relationship between the Departments of Agriculture and Food and of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government? Is there an interdepartmental committee to examine this? As I listened to Mr. Sadlier, I found it amazing to hear him say no farmer in his right mind would spread a fertilizer in September or October. I put it to him that some years ago when there was a fodder crisis, the Department of Agriculture and Food urged farmers to spread fertilizer and to take a late crop of silage in November and even December. Current farming practices promote 365 day grazing. Mr. Sadlier appears to be at loggerheads especially with the recommendations of Teagasc officials from the Department of Agriculture and Food. The advice to farmers now is to extend the grazing period and to limit the length of time animals are housed. As that is only one of several examples I could provide of conflict between the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Agriculture and Food, I would like to know what level of co-operation there is between them.

Mr. Sadlier used the words "nonsensical approach" and said there should be a common sense approach. Is it proposed to extend storage periods to make them open-ended at both ends at the end of the year? The current date from which farmers can spread is 16 January. Is it proposed to extend that by two weeks? If so, what level of compensation for farmers is proposed? The proposed blanket calendar ban does not make sense to the rural community.

For example, the weather in early January can be good and conducive to growth and spreading. From 16 January onwards, however, it can be bad, yet one is permitted to spread slurry. A more flexible attitude is needed. The onus should be on the farming community to adhere to the principle of refraining from spreading slurry when the weather forecast is bad. I ask the delegation to address that issue.

Have the Departments considered alternative means of disposing of slurry, other than the conventional approach? From a farming point of view, the problem is the expense attached. The proposals will only impact on more intensive farmers. The farming community should be given a settling in period to adjust to these proposals. It is ironic that the lead-in time for the proposals lasted from 1991 to 2004. During this period, little was done, apart from the introduction in 1996 of a code of agricultural practice to protect water from pollution by nitrates. The code was not built on and both Departments did very little during the lead-in period I mentioned.

The imposition of the new requirements on the farming community by 20 March will have a severe impact. Other people outside the farming community, whether officials of the Department or Governments over the years, have questions to answer in this regard. They should carry the can for this directive, its likely impact and the speed with which it is being implemented.

Has provision been made for compensation or grants to assist the farming community in implementing the programme, which must be done as a matter of urgency? As Mr. O'Donovan stated, implementation will be expensive in many cases. This is an unusual, extreme case. Are there proposals to help the farming community?

Deputy Harkin

I thank the Departments for their clear and easily understandable presentation. I agree with Senator Coonan that we must not lose sight of the reason our backs are to the wall, namely, the failure to deal with this issue when we should have addressed it. We now find ourselves in a difficult position which we must not ignore.

As Mr. O'Donovan stated, we must satisfy the Commission by addressing a lengthy list of issues and problems. What specific action have the Departments taken to satisfy the Commission's requirements? The presentation states that some of the zones are inappropriate. Will the delegation elaborate on that comment? What scientific evidence is required to designate zones? Is the Commission arguing that the scientific evidence presented by the Departments on the designation of zones was not acceptable?

Deputy Upton asked about a comparison with other countries. Mr. O'Donovan stated that Ireland is the only country which does not operate the programme. Has a comparison been made between water quality here and in countries in which a programme is in place?

Climatic and soil conditions were mentioned. I echo Senator Coonan's comment that Ireland has weather as opposed to a climate. Is it possible that the directive will result in increased pollution? We could get heavy rain, particularly in the west, in August, June or January.

Does the fact that we must revisit the self-granted derogation of 250 kg mean we have no option but to return to a figure of 170 kg? What exactly does that mean?

What progress has been made with regard to alternatives to high cost concrete storage such as lined stores, constructed wetlands, outwintering pads etc? Do the Departments propose to introduce compensation packages for farmers?

Senator Callanan

I welcome officials from both Departments whom I have met once or twice previously. There is no point returning to 1991 because it is now 2005 and we are facing a problem. Given that water quality has demonstrably improved since 1991, a water management programme must be operated somewhere by some people. That must be accepted.

Mr. O'Donovan gave us a great deal of bad news and we will pay a hell of a price if we cannot respond quickly. Are the main issues of concern for the Commission the spreading of slurry, slurry storage and the methodology used? Are those by and large the problems to be addressed?

It is late in the day. Have we examined what other countries in Europe are doing? Have we considered Denmark's approach to dealing with pig slurry? Have we examined the feeding protocols used there which reduce nitrogen ammonia in animal feed, particularly pig feed, without affecting pig production output?

Have we examined the issue of reducing phosphorus, which is a scientific matter? Have we examined the spreading of slurry? Slurry tanks have a flap at the back which results in the slurry being spread laterally. I have not changed my opinion which I have stated previously, that lateral spreading will be gone in five years. Mr. O'Donovan disagreed with me on one occasion when I stated that the stitching or banding in of slurry might be a way forward. I still believe that to be the case. Another mechanism developed in Senator Coonan's county involves making an attachment to the back of the slurry spreader, spreading the slurry onto the ground and placing a cover over it.

These are simple matters which would help overcome the problem. Are we discussing inland waterways, underground water sources or the Kyoto agreement? A significant amount of nitrogen ammonia is lost in the atmosphere through lateral spreading, which is of little value to the farmer. Lateral spreading is a simple farming technique. Have we considered this issue?

I agree with other members that calendar farming does not work. As Ms Harkin said, although regulations may state certain things and specify times of the year, the weather may be totally unsuitable. A way around that must be found through local Teagasc offices together with local authorities. A blanket ban is unsatisfactory. The members of the delegation would probably also accept that. The difficulty will be for us to convince Europe of the case.

The issue of storage has previously been raised. Although I may be alone in my view I will pursue this argument until it is finalised. While concrete storage is grant aided it is costly. Small or medium-sized farmers who try to operate to the best of their abilities cannot meet the required standard. I am somewhat concerned by what Mr. O'Donovan said about reducing stocking rates. I do not want stocking rates to be reduced. I want land use and production. It is a cardinal sin to insist on concrete storage in all circumstances. I state with absolute authority that there is nothing wrong with earthen bounding for small and medium-sized farmers. If necessary the storage areas could be lined. I could take the delegation to several farms where such storage areas are in use. We could go to one in north Cork that is in use for up to 20 years. If I mentioned the name of the farmer which I will not, it would be well known to the members of the delegation. This system also operates in County Tipperary and other parts of the country.

The issue of planning is relevant in this context. Can the matter not be cleared up in conjunction with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government? Landfill is in use in County Cork. The Bottlehill site may be familiar to the delegation members. We are borrowing €110 million to provide a lined hole in the ground.

Deputy J. Brady took the Chair.

Chairman

Senator Callanan should confine himself to the nitrates directive, not planning or landfill.

Senator Callanan

I am. The Chairman is missing my point. We are lining a landfill site and nobody will convince me that slurry going into earthen bounding is not as safe as a municipal landfill site. I accept that in landfills sumps are in place to take out the leachate and pipes to take out gases.

I plead with the delegation to please come to a favourable decision and allow farmers to go ahead otherwise they will be driven off the land in droves. I do not represent rogue farmers, nor I am sure does anybody else here. We are interested in good farming practice.

Committee members will have heard me previously discuss the next point. I was told anaerobic digestion would not work. A number of these units are already in operation. They are ideally suited to the pig industry. Cork County Council granted four permissions for them last year. They are also in operation elsewhere in the country and they are widespread in Europe and the United States. What do we have against them? The argument is made in regard to cattle farming that it is not a year-round enterprise. Mr. Sadlier is no doubt aware that municipal authority sludge must be spread on land as it has to go somewhere. We should examine the use of anaerobic digestion. Commercial farmers use it both here and in Europe. Municipal and local authorities across Europe and the United States use it. What is wrong with us here? We have to work together to find solutions that will work.

Chairman

The Senator is straying again.

Senator Callanan

I thank the Chairman for allowing me say that. I have a couple of more things to add later.

Deputy Crawford

I am very conscious of this issue as a representative of counties Cavan and Monaghan which are heavily involved in poultry, pig and mushroom production. These counties have been included in one of the more vulnerable zones in terms of the duration of storage which must be provided. I almost lost my Dáil seat because I tried to take action to deal with this problem. I promoted the use of a biomass plant to deal with mushroom compost and chicken litter, in particular. I am extremely angry about the lack of effort that has been made in regard to this issue since it was first mooted in 1991 and brought into being in 1992. We are the only country in Europe without an action plan. As one of the larger benefactors of the CAP we are also the most vulnerable. I say that because I strongly believe it. However we now have to move on. In so far as is possible I will be the first to co-operate in that regard.

The Monaghan poultry industry has had to compete with Northern Ireland where there is a lack of planning requirements. Many intensive poultry producers in my county, more so than in the constituency, were not allowed to modify or extend their premises in order to remain competitive. We are in competition with producers across the Border. We should know what regulations are in place in the UK, specifically in Northern Ireland. Some recognition has to be given to the fact we have to compete commercially in this area. We have an all-Ireland tourism approach and I would have liked to see an all-Ireland smoking ban. Surely if we have a different regulation in Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim, Cavan, Monaghan and Louth than in the Six Counties of Northern Ireland it will complicate matters even more.

In discussions with the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body in recent days we examined the different issues concerning small farmers, of which there are in the region of 60,000 in Ireland, who are in a type of twilight zone as their viability is in question.

It was said by a speaker on the Government side that the single payment would allow such farmers to destock and thus come within the remit of the nitrates directive as they would not have the problem of housing stock. Do we really wish to force these farmers to destock? I understand that under European Union regulations no grant is available to farmers with under 20 livestock units or some such figure. Surely if the EU is pushing us to provide storage it will have to alter that regulation. It may be that the Irish Government would pay the grant aid. Ten years ago €60 million was provided in grant aid for pollution control when there was not the same kind of pressure, but all that is available from this year's budget is €39 million. I urge the two Departments to work together to minimise the damage to agriculture. It is very easy to say we have a pollution problem caused mainly by agriculture, but I do not accept that.

Companies and industries are, by licence, actually releasing pollutants into water to a much greater extent than farmers. We must be realistic and make sure we do not introduce laws or allow the European Union to impose laws that will mean the end to commercial agriculture as we recognise it. The figures announced some days ago by the Minister, Teagasc and the Agri-Vision 2015 committee show that the number of genuine commercial farmers in Ireland in 2015 will be frighteningly low. This will affect employment and the balance of payments.

According to the Minister's figures, which were given to me just last week, there was a decrease in the number of cattle in the order of one million between 1998 and 2003. I was shocked by this statistic. I did not seek it specifically but sought other information on tagging. If the number of cattle dropped that much before any discussion on single payments or the nitrates directive, the conditions that will obtain in the future are worrying. We take political swipes without apology but this industry, our largest industry, is much too important for us to play games and therefore we must work together to minimise the damage thereto. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should note that the importance of the industry is not always realised until there is a crisis such as the foot and mouth disease outbreak.

I am sorry for being long-winded and for reiterating my original point. I represent the area with most intensive production, yet the highest demands are made on that area under the nitrates regulations.

Chairman

I thank the Deputy for assuming the Chair while we were voting in the Dáil Chamber.

Deputy Carty

I welcome the officials from both Departments. I do not know whether they have answered the questions put to them by Deputies Naughten and Upton but I, too, am interested in receiving an answer to them. The officials referred to Directive 2001/81/EC on emission ceilings and Directive 75/442/EEC and mentioned sloping land. Will nobody be allowed to spread slurry on sloping land?

Deputy Callanan

I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss the nitrates issue which is very serious for farmers on two fronts. First, they do not want to receive any fine and, second, the cost will be considerable if we do not handle the matter correctly.

The regulations refer to prohibited periods for spreading and storage. The officials stated that the minimum storage period for livestock manure needs to be increased. By how much should it be increased? If a farmer is below the limit of 170 kg per hectare, is extra storage still required? I believe weather is paramount in terms of storage. Last week, if one had driven through the countryside one would have seen slurry being spread at a high rate because the weather was suitable. The forecast for next week is such that it may not be suitable. It could even be 1 April before it is possible. It could be pouring rain on that date and could be a very bad time to spread slurry. I understand that slurry can be spread any time the grass is growing, given that it is not pouring rain.

The officials referred to two and four weeks in respect of the extension of the period. What is meant by this? Does the period of four weeks apply to the zones that were 14 weeks in duration before now and the two-week period to the zones that were up to 18 weeks in duration? If there are to be extra weeks, they should relate to October rather than the spring. The science suggests this also. Spring is supposed to start on 1 February, around when grass begins to grow. It has been growing the whole year this year but that is beside the point. October would suit better because farmers might not have their stock in at that time. I believe the officials answered the question on whether the derogation for applications of up to 250 kg of nitrogen per hectare will stand until the rest of the issues are resolved.

Senator Scanlon

I thank the officials for discussing this issue with the committee because it is very important. We need to examine the periods during which farmers will be allowed to spread slurry. One could be regulating to create more pollution, certainly in the north west from where I come. Could a system be put in place whereby a farmer who has to spread outside the prescribed period could be recertified by his local county council or Teagasc office to allow him to do so? This would be a good idea because the times prescribed for the spreading of slurry are times at which farmers, certainly those in the north west, might not even be able to drive onto their land with tractors, never mind spread slurry. Will the Department consider this? It would be a move in the right direction.

Chairman

I do not want to repeat what has been said but common sense should apply to the spreading of slurry. As members have stated, very suitable weather for spreading slurry could obtain during the period in which one is prohibited from spreading it. Considering that local radio stations serve almost every county, could the local authorities not advertise preferred times for spreading slurry, just as blight warnings are issued on the radio during the blight season? If there is a three, four or five month period during which one cannot spread slurry, it could be the case that there would be three or four wet days after the first day on which one is allowed to spread it and at which time one must spread it because every tank is full. As the officials asked, where will that slurry go? Common sense should be applied but perhaps the EU officials do not see it that way. That is all I have to add to the comments of my colleagues. Will Mr. Sadlier reply to the questions of Deputy Naughten and the remaining questions?

Mr. Sadlier

My colleague, Mr. O'Donovan, is eager to answer some of the questions pertaining to the Department of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. O’Donovan

Many points have been raised and I will do my best to address those best suited to the Department of Agriculture and Food. With the permission of the Chairman, my colleague Mr. Quinlivan, who is more expert than me on some of the scientific aspects, will reply to some of the questions.

I will return to a point that Senator Coonan made, when he asked about the relationship between the two Departments. This directive is on water quality and is therefore in the first instance a matter for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. As it is a directive relating to pollution arising from farming, the Department of Agriculture and Food has major concerns with it. The two Departments have been in constant touch over several years on this and have approached it in a spirit of co-operation. There is a question of the national interest, the interests of the environment and those of farming. We must attempt to balance all those. The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, and her predecessor, Deputy Walsh, have both said repeatedly that the objective of both Departments in discussing the nitrates directive is to minimise the burden on farmers and ensure that we safeguard the future of the commercial agriculture sector. There is no difference between the two Departments, and those are our joint objectives.

Senator Coonan

Is there an interdepartmental working group on it?

Mr. O’Donovan

Yes. We are in regular ad hoc contact, and Mr. Quinlivan and some of our other officials are on such groups for various purposes. There is no question at any stage of either Department acting without regard to the other. I take the points made about advice that may have been given in the past on when farmers should be spreading or extending grazing periods. Mr. Quinlivan may have some comment on that. Another issue that several speakers raised was compensation for the cost of extra investment. We already have a grants scheme in place that offers farmers aid at a level of up to 40% for investment in farm waste storage. There is provision of €39 million for that this year.

One speaker commented that it seemed on the low side. We spent less than €17 million last year. It is a demand-led scheme, and we cannot spend the cash unless farmers apply for it. However, they applied for far less than we provided last year. Many may be sitting back, conscious of the fact that Mr. Brosnan made recommendations that we should raise the level of grant aid to help farmers meet their obligations under the nitrates directive. We are considering that, but the Department of Finance obviously also has an interest in the matter. How expensive it is depends on what we ultimately have to give to satisfy the Commission regarding the action programme. It is only at that stage that we can decide what level of grant aid we can provide.

Deputy Crawford

Speaking as an ordinary farmer, the application form is a nightmare. That is why the uptake was so small.

Mr. O’Donovan

I note that point. We are conscious as a Department that we must simplify documentation not just in that scheme but in many of the others.

Alternative storage was raised by several speakers. The concrete-based storage is the most expensive. We accept the need to examine alternatives. Equally, those alternatives must be satisfactory from all sorts of other viewpoints too. A working party in which the Department and Teagasc are participating is at a very advanced stage of considering earthen bank storage, and I understand that we should be getting recommendations in the two Departments on that very shortly — certainly in time to finalise the provisions of the action programme and any associated regulations and guidelines. We are not nearly so advanced in examining other possible alternatives, but the main interest is in the earthen bank possibility.

I mentioned that for some less-intensive farmers, there would be the possibility of destocking rather than increasing waste storage facilities without losing their single payments. The Department is not in any way advocating that. Every farmer would have to make up his or her own mind depending on the financial realities of the limited storage that they have. We are not saying that it is the way to go, but it will be an option and suit some. Mr. Sadlier will be coming back on some of the specific questions of what the Commission requires of us and perhaps also the situation in other countries.

Senator Callanan raised the different spreading technologies. Mr. Quinlivan might comment on that, but we have been considering it, and it will also form part of what we do to implement the nitrates directive. I think that I have picked up on most points. Mr. Quinlivan may wish to add something.

Mr. Tom Quinlivan

Mr. O'Donovan has covered a great deal of ground. Some of the questions raised earlier he might not have dealt with, however. Deputy Naughten mentioned sewage sludge. The regulations regarding the use of such sludge in agriculture are much more onerous than proposed regarding animal manure in agriculture. Regulations have been in place — since 1998, as far as I remember — on the use of sludge in agriculture. It must be used in accordance with a nutrient management plan. Nowhere is it proposed regarding the application of our action programme that there be a nutrient management plan.

Senator Callanan mentioned extended grazing and so on. The situation in Ireland is that research has shown that the use of chemical fertilisers or animal manure after mid-September is unnecessary since there is no crop response taking one year with the next. There are some unusual years when one will get a response since the weather varies. However, taking one year with the next, trying nutrients after mid-September is not economically or environmentally sound. Regarding grass growth during the winter period, there are enough nutrients available naturally through the process of mineralisation to satisfy whatever growth is taking place during winter. There is therefore no point in applying animal manures in late October, since it is the wrong time of the year, when grass growth has almost ceased and it is vulnerable to loss through leaching. That is not the time of year when one should be applying it.

The same point follows regarding the application of animal manures on the basis of weather forecasts. It is fine during the growing season, but during the winter period, there is no point. The crops — grass is the main one — do not need it at that time. In addition, controlling such a system through prosecution or applying penalties is almost impossible. Such a system is not really workable.

On the question of alternative uses for animal manure, it has been mentioned that anaerobic digestion might be one route. There is a great deal of interest in that possibility, and I believe that it has something to offer. With such digestion, there are possibilities regarding energy production, and the end product is very good. Unfortunately, it does not reduce the amount of waste of which one must dispose at the end of the process. One still has the same volume of material to dispose of. It does not really offer any possibilities in that regard.

Deputy Crawford mentioned biomass. That might be a possibility in the poultry sector and it is worth exploring. Band spreading was mentioned and indeed, has much to offer. The efficiency of utilisation of nutrients is superior to splash plate spreading and has many advantages. Ammonia was mentioned, losses, transboundary gases with constraints etc. Unfortunately the machines used for band spreading, direct injection and all the more recent technologies are much more expensive than the vacuum tanker with the backsplash plate.

In our action programme we have proposed that the upward facing splash plate should be prohibited. That is a significant development which will be beneficial. I believe that covers some of the issues raised.

Chairman

Does Mr. Sadlier want to come back? Replies have still to be given to some of the questions raised by Deputy Naughten.

Mr. Sadlier

I believe the two remaining questions put by Deputy Naughten related to sewer sludge and planning levies. Mr. Quinlivan has dealt with sewer sludge. The regulations dealing with it are quite stringent. The quantities arising that need to be land-spread are tiny compared to agricultural sludges but are covered by a specific regulatory regime which requires that the farmer has a nutrient management plan. The spreading must be done in accordance with the plan and the soil must be tested regularly as well as the sludge to ensure the various constituents, metals, etc., are not in breach of safety levels. There is quite a strong regime in place in this regard. As regards planning levies and costs for which farmers are liable, local authority planning levies, this has already been raised directly with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, by the farming organisations. He has given an undertaking to review the situation. The matter is currently being considered by the Minister. The farming bodies have given examples of situations where they consider the levies to be excessive.

I do not want to cover ground that has been dealt with by others. I can confirm, however, that there is a high level of co-ordination between the two Departments. The two Departments are different and they approach the same situation from different angles. However, there is a common objective, to provide an appropriate level of protection for the environment, while at the same time bringing forward solutions that maintain sustainable farming. The solutions brought forward must be the cheapest available in terms of achieving their objectives. We must identify and allow for the lowest cost solutions that will deliver and for that reason various approaches are being examined such as earthen banks, constructed wetlands, outwintering pads and so on.

Mr. Quinlivan has already dealt with the question of the action programme as sent to the Commission. It addresses the manner in which livestock manure is to be spread. Livestock manure should be applied using an inverted, not an upward facing, splash plate. It may be applied using the inverted splash plate, band spreading or trailing shoe, soil injection or soil incorporation methods. It specifically prohibits the use of the umbilical cord, often used to spread slurry when the land is too wet even to carry tractors.

The question of sloping land was raised. The action programme as sent to Brussels says that "fertilisers should not be applied to land where the ground slopes steeply, and, taking into account factors such as proximity to bodies of water, soil condition, ground cover and rainfall, where there is a significant risk of causing water pollution". It is definitely not a blanket ban on spreading on sloping ground. However where there is sloping ground in tandem with the risk of causing water pollution, the Commission wants us to introduce more specific criteria to define those aspects.

There was a certain amount of criticism about the calendar day. That has been dealt with already, perhaps by my colleagues from the Department of Agriculture and Food. The action programme, as we have it now, expressly proposes that the land spreading of chemical and organic fertiliser should be prohibited at certain times. That is provided for already. This is on the basis, as outlined, that there are certain times of the year when there is no crop requirement for fertiliser. Even though the growth level may be very low there is no need for the application of more fertilisers as there is enough available in the soil already. The problem from the Commission's viewpoint is that the periods we propose are not long enough. A question was raised specifically as to what way the Commission wanted the periods extended. For chemical fertiliser it wants to see an extra two weeks added on to the end of the closed period, in January. For organic fertiliser, in the most northerly counties — zone C — the Commission wants an extra two weeks added on at the end of the period and for the rest of the country — zones A and B — it wants a total of four weeks added on, both at the beginning and end of the period. It varies for different zones and types of fertiliser, but it is extended by two to four weeks, generally. I am not sure there is much else we can say.

Chairman

Are there any supplementary questions? Deputy Naughten is first.

Deputy Naughten

I want to come back to two questions I asked earlier, and perhaps I could elaborate on one of them. Is it not the case that in the documentation submitted to Brussels seeking the derogation, that the Government has stated that 8% of the territory or 12% of the agricultural area is more prone to nitrate leeching losses? This is an issue about 12% of the agricultural area based on the Department's submissions to Brussels. Perhaps somebody could clarify the position for me.

As regards the sludge issue, is the waste water sludge not part of the calculation in relation to nitrates, as set out under the 170 kg or 250 kg restrictions that are in place? As regards the spreading of sludge, does that not have to comply with the same restrictions in place for the spreading of slurry? That is an important issue.

The nitrates directive that has been in operation in Denmark for a considerable number of years has not had an impact as regards groundwater or water courses in reducing the nitrate content. Where there is intensive farming in operation, it has been found that the directive has not had a significant impact on the scale of production.

Perhaps Mr. O'Donovan might elaborate on the comment he made to the effect that the position would be worse if we had not gone for a whole territory approach, regarding the designation. Why would we be in a worse position than if we had opted for a specific area approach? We all accept that there are zones within the country where there are difficulties. Why would we be in a worse position today in that regard?

Dr. Upton

I thank the officials for their scientific answers. They have been extremely useful in setting out where we are at. My question, however, is a political one: where to, next, what time-frame and what can we hope to achieve?

Deputy Blaney

I want to make a point as regards an earlier question. From my experience in Donegal the majority of towns, particularly where the population is under 5,000, have no sewerage schemes. The effluent goes straight into streams, rivers and the ocean. I know many of the larger ones have been granted funding for sewage schemes, which are not happening on the ground. What is the Department doing about that? What is it doing to enforce local authorities to provide these schemes quicker?

Chairman

That is a different issue.

Deputy Blaney

If the Department is facing fines from the EU on this what local authorities face them? Different Deputies have referred to the weather forecast when talking about the growing season. I believe the growing season as depending on the ground temperature. We had no frost this year until the first week of December, yet in Dublin there has been much frost throughout the year. In Donegal we have had three nights frost so far this year. Our growing season is a lot longer than it is in the midlands and the different areas that have been zoned. I do not think the Department is looking at the full picture as it should be. The growing seasons and the regulated on-the-ground temperatures should be examined in each county. Each county should be taken on it own, rather than designating zones and basing them on what the temperatures and rainfall could be. Every county is different every year. In recent years, there has been more rainfall in the south than in Donegal. The criteria used for zoning is not accurate and does not go in accordance with the statistics as I know them. The zones should also recognise the nitrogen vulnerable zones as designated by the Environmental Protection Agency. North of the Galway-Dublin line does not really contain any nitrogen vulnerable zones, yet these zones are worst hit when it comes to storage. We are not looking at the real picture at all.

Deputy Crawford

I asked a question concerning the UK, particularly Northern Ireland. I asked it for a positive reason. If we are going to Brussels to negotiate for——

Chairman

We will deal with that in correspondence. Is that okay?

Deputy Crawford

It is very relevant to our situation in the Border areas. If there is agreement with Brussels to have a specific zoning or time-frame to keep slurry in County Fermanagh, then we should be able to use that.

Chairman

We will get that response through correspondence from the Department. I do not think Mr. Sadlier would have the answer to that question today.

Mr. Sadlier

I might have something.

Deputy Crawford

I want to give an example of a good farmer in County Cavan who has carried out work on his farm and he only has to cut back 10% on his cows, but he has to close his pig unit. That is the reality of how this thing will affect farmers.

Deputy Callanan

The Department is looking for two weeks extra for the longer spreading periods. It wants four weeks on the other periods. The two week period would occur coming into Spring. For the four week period, two would go back and two would go forward. If the level is below 170 kg per hectare, does the farmer have to make extra storage facilities?

Deputy Harkin

I asked a broad question on the comparison between water quality in Ireland and in other European countries. We have just heard that in Denmark, where the nitrates action plan is in place, there has been no significant difference to the water quality. Could Mr. Sadlier comment on that?

Senator Callanan

I thank the witnesses for the positive responses to my question. One question was missed. The Danes have a high rate of pig production and export about 95% of what they produce. They have got the organic nitrogen down to 140 kg per hectare within their own state, far less than the 170 kg per hectare threshold. They have done it through feed management, through the deduction of protein. Has that been examined?

Mr. Sadlier

As there are quite a few topics, I will briefly run through some of them. The authorities in Northern Ireland expected to have published a draft nitrates action programme in January, but it has not yet appeared. We expect to see a proposal for 22 weeks storage capacity applying to the whole territory of Northern Ireland. However, that remains to be seen. As the authorities have been in discussion with the Ulster Farmers Union, that is how we are aware of it.

A question was asked whether a farmer who had a level below 170 kg per hectare would need more storage. That depends on how much storage the farmer has at the moment. Whatever number of livestock units on a farm, the farmer needs storage capacity for that number of animals. For example, if a farmer has 100 livestock units now and is told that his storage capacity is inadequate, he must make a decision. He must either reduce his number of animals or he can spend the money on increasing the capacity, or he can figure out some other of getting the slurry exported and used somewhere else such as another farm.

Is there any other method of dealing with livestock manure slurry besides spraying it on land? By and large, land spreading of slurry is the correct and most appropriate and sensible way of dealing with animal manure. As long as it is done in accordance with good farming practice, then that is fine. Practically, I would not see any other alternative method for dealing on a large scale basis with all the quantities of livestock manure.

A point was made that there has been no difference in ground water in countries such as Denmark. There are significant differences between the characteristics of water, land and soil in Ireland and in other countries. As a general rule, water quality in Ireland is better than that in the European Union. There are some countries that are better than we are, but we still have higher than average water quality. In Denmark, the biggest nitrogen pollution regarding water quality is in marine waters. The North Sea is heavily polluted from eutrophication due to nitrogen. It is more of a marine problem there, in addition to its surface water and groundwater. Groundwaters in Ireland are much faster flowing than in continental Europe where ground waters are often in the nature of an underground lake. If they become polluted, it takes a long time for the water to flush out and to become regenerated. In Ireland, we expect that there would be a much faster response.

I was also asked how quickly nitrogen reaches ground water. That depends. If nitrogen is applied to one type of soil today, it could reach ground water today. In another area, it might take 20 years for it to reach groundwater. It depends entirely on the specifics of the land in question. No one expects a rapid response. Water quality does not respond rapidly to improving practice. It takes time, with the exception of where one might have a specific source. If one had a pipe coming out of a factory or a sewage treatment plant which was clearly polluting at that point, then if that point was treated, immediate improvement would occur. However, it takes a long time to respond to general pollution levels. For example, even if one stopped putting phosphorous in a lake, the lake would react naturally by beginning to release phosphorous from the sediment in the lake.

There is a long period involved and the success of our action programme will not be determined solely by reference to improvements in water quality. When we demonstrate we are moving in the right direction, this should be sufficient and more quickly demonstrate changing farm practices. We should be able to quickly demonstrate that farmyards are better managed, correct storage capacity is being installed on farms and, as far as one can tell, there is not widespread land-spreading of manure during the prohibited period. There should be a fast response in regard to farm practices, although not as fast in regard to water quality.

Deputy Blaney referred to County Donegal and the growing season. All the factors to which he referred, namely, rainfall, soil climate, air climate and type of soil, are valid and determine the growing season. They are all accounted for and listed on maps, prepared by Teagasc and other bodies, which delineate in a dramatic way the difference between parts of the country in regard to the growing season and when fertiliser needs to be applied to land.

Deputy Naughten referred to 8% leaching, which figure is stated in the application for the derogation and refers to the quantity of land of a type particularly prone to the fairly rapid leaching of nitrogen. Leaching is the process whereby fertiliser enters the soil and somehow moves into the water. It is not always clear where the pathway is or how this happens. However, this is only one aspect of water pollution from farming. A more serious aspect is the placing of fertiliser on the ground shortly before rain, on waterlogged ground or frozen land where it cannot be incorporated into the soil. Given any rain, the nutrients are washed off the surface into the water without there being a leaching problem.

Deputy Naughten

Good farming practice would cover this.

Mr. Sadlier

It would. However, the code of good farming practice published in 1996 states fertilisers should not be spread during these times. The nitrates action programme is simply converting what was a voluntary code of good practice into obligations with which it is an offence not to comply.

Another serious source of water pollution is farmyards where soiled water is not adequately managed or where excessive amounts of soiled water arise because gutters and drainpipes, for example, are not maintained adequately. If rain was falling on the roof of a haybarn or similar large surface area, the water should be collected in a drain or through a drainpipe. It could then be sent directly into the nearest stream or drain without a problem because it is clean. Unfortunately, it often falls on the ground and unnecessarily becomes soiled water. This water, instead of being properly channelled, is often used to fill up slurry tanks. This is serious water mismanagement. It is necessary for clean water to be diverted immediately, for soiled water to be minimised and collected separately and for slurry tanks to be kept for slurry only. If slurry tanks fill up with water, four months slurry capacity may be filled in one month and a farmer will have nowhere to put slurry unless the soiled water is diverted.

Leaching is a valid factor but it is only one piece of a much bigger jigsaw. The idea of——

Deputy Naughten

It is the critical element.

Mr. Sadlier

Not necessarily.

Deputy Naughten

It is the critical element in Mr. Sadlier's submission. That is the argument he makes in regard to the derogation.

Mr. Sadlier

The point made is that, theoretically, 92% of Ireland could qualify for a derogation, rather than the other way around.

If I have missed any points, I will be happy to deal with them. I am not trying to avoid any of the issues raised and I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss them.

Mr. Quinlivan

Deputy Naughten referred to sludge. With regard to the action programme, nutrients must be used in accordance with crop requirements which are based on Teagasc recommendations. The same would apply to the use of sewage sludge and anyone using this would have to apply it in accordance with crop requirements. However, the Deputy is correct that there is a legal difference in that the directive applies to nutrients from agriculture whereas sewage sludge does not come from agriculture. Therefore, the nitrogen in sewage sludge does not come into the calculation for the 170 kg limit.

Deputy Naughten

The spreading period was the other element of my question. Do the same restrictions apply to the spreading period?

Mr. Quinlivan

They are the same. With regard to animal feed, the Deputy referred to the progress made in other member states but much progress has been made in Ireland on matching feedstuffs with the requirements of animals, for example, in regard to multi-stage feeding etc. Much progress has been made on the use of phosphorous, in particular, and the supplementation of diets with phosphorous has greatly reduced. This has been accomplished through the use of phytase enzyme with the result that less phosphorous ends up in the manure from pigs and poultry, in particular. We probably have not made as much progress in regard to feedstuffs for ruminants as in regard to pigs and poultry but matching feed to animal requirements is definitely in the focus of the animal feed industry in Ireland.

Mr. Sadlier

A question was asked as to "what now and when?" I can only answer on the "when" in that we must respond to the European Commission's letter by 22 March at the latest. This is the "when" for the next clear signal of what will be the policy approach taken. However, I cannot state exactly what that policy response will be as I cannot predict the future. It will depend on the Minister's consideration of the most appropriate course.

Deputy Naughten

Will Mr. O'Donovan elaborate on his comment that we will be in a worse position if we do not go for a whole territory approach? This is an important issue.

Mr. O’Donovan

The directive gives two options, either to designate nitrate vulnerable zones or to adopt a whole territory approach. There are arguments for both approaches. In the event, it was a Government decision to go for the whole territory approach. This is now law because the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government made regulations designating the whole territory for the purposes of the directive. This line was endorsed at the time by the IFA in preference to the nitrate vulnerable zones approach.

When I stated we would be worse off if we had gone for the nitrate vulnerable zones approach, I was simply quoting a comment made to us in direct discussions with Commission officials in that they felt the whole territory approach was a more credible response to our obligations under the directive and that it made them more inclined to give us as much leeway as possible. While it probably seems as if they have us up against a wall at this stage, in their terms they have already given us considerable leeway, to which the decision to go for a whole territory approach was a contributory factor. However, in its terms, it has already given us considerable leeway and the decision to go for a whole-territory approach was a contributing factor in this regard.

Mr. Sadlier

In developing its position on Ireland and all member states, the Commission contracted an environmental resources consultancy firm, Environmental Resources Management, to undertake a study of each country and produce recommendations. Its recommendation for Ireland was that the storage period should be six or seven months. This is the Commission's own recommendation as advised by its consultants. In so far as it has moved back from there, it is a reflection of the extent to which the Commission considers that taking a holistic approach to farming as a whole in all areas puts Ireland in a more favourable position.

Chairman

I understand both departmental delegations will meet the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government next week.

Mr. O’Donovan

That is correct. We will also meet the EPA and Teagasc.

Chairman

That is good. If members have any further questions, they can attend that committee meeting. On behalf of the committee, I thank Mr. Sadlier, Mr. O'Donovan, Mr. Morris and Mr. Quinlivan for their attendance and for answering members' questions.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed in private session at 1.35 p.m.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.40 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 9 February 2005.