JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD debate -
Wednesday, 24 Jan 2007

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

I welcome officials from the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Agriculture and Food, who are present to update the committee on the following EU proposal: COM (2006) 397, proposed directive of the European Parliament and the Council on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EEC. This proposal was referred for further scrutiny by the committee, given the highlighted cost of the adoption of the proposed measures. Mr. John Sadlier, Mr. Tim Morris and Mr. Pat Duggan from the water quality section of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government are in attendance, as is Mr. Aidan Moody from the pesticide control service of the Department of Agriculture and Food.

Before Mr. Sadlier makes his opening contribution, I draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they 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. I call on Mr. Sadlier to make his presentation.

Mr. John Sadlier

I thank the committee for the invitation to appear before it and we are pleased to assist the committee in any way we can in its consideration of this proposal.

The proposal is generally known as the proposed directive on priority substances in water. It is brief and simple but we have provided the committee with an information note on where the directive fits in the general scheme of things, in addition to the scrutiny note we provided a number of months ago. The new note provides a summary of the position of this directive in the broader scheme.

The current directive is simple in that it proposes environmental quality standards for 41 specific substances and requires member states to prepare an inventory of the sources of the substances in each river basin district. It also addresses other technical issues such as defining transitional discharge areas. The directive will establish an environmental or water quality standard, which will determine on a scientific basis the point at which the concentration of a particular substance in water begins to cause a problem. It is an attempt to define a specific level by which one can measure whether the level is acceptable or is beginning to cause environmental problems. That is the objective of an environmental quality standard.

However, in the general scheme of things, the proposed directive is a technical daughter directive under the water framework directive. Therefore, the setting of these environmental quality standards on an EU-wide basis sets a level playing field and a consistent standard of environmental protection across all member states and avoids anti-competitive features. It also provides a yardstick by which member states can move forward with the process of river basin management planning for the purpose of deciding objectives, developing a programme of measures to achieve those objectives and putting the measures into place within the timeframe laid down by the water framework directive.

With regard to the timeframe laid down by the directive, we have already achieved a number of steps. The biggest single remaining step is that by the year 2009 we must have adopted river basin management plans in each river basin district. Those plans must contain environmental objectives and they must set out the programme of measures to achieve those objectives. All of the measures must be operational by 2012, with a view to achieving all the objectives by 2015. That is the timeframe towards which we are working. The current exercise is mid-way in the preparatory stages towards developing these river basin management plans. It establishes water quality standards for this range of substances.

To a large extent, this is not a new exercise. It is a modernisation of what has already taken place under a 1976 dangerous substances directive. That directive was concerned with dangerous substances in water and created several daughter directives for individual water quality standards for specific substances. All of these will be repealed in the context of the water framework directive and management will be modernised by the proposed directive. To a significant extent, there will be an updating and modernisation of the measures taken in the early stages of environmental protection in the European Union.

If I depart from those general comments I will become involved in detailed discussion. I would, therefore, be happy to conclude here, except to make the following important point. The proposals have been sent out for consultation to various bodies within Ireland, with a view to identifying the significance of these standards and likely problems they might cause. We have already got some informal feedback that indicates they are unlikely to cause any special problems of significance unique to Ireland. Among the proposals there will be winners and losers but in an Irish context we are likely to have more winners than losers. The potential losers are the manufacturers of substances that may need to be reduced in use or even cease to be used. To the best of our knowledge, this is not a matter affecting Irish industry.

I will be happy to develop any of these points and to answer any questions.

Deputy Naughten

In practical terms, what will the proposed directive mean, particularly with regard to agriculture? There will be a restriction on the use of pesticides based on the tables we have been given. What are the practical implications of the restriction on the use of some of these pesticides, be it in day-to-day farming activities or the forestry sector? While restrictions are in place regarding the use of fertilisers under the nitrates directive, will the directive, when in place, require additional conditions to be met?

Mr. Sadlier

I am accompanied by Mr. Aidan Moody from the pesticides control service who will be able to answer the Deputy's question in detail. By and large, the pesticides sector is likely to be impacted on least by the proposed directive. With the Chairman's permission, I will invite Mr. Moody to elaborate on the issue.

Mr. Aidan Moody

I am an agricultural inspector in the Department of Agriculture and Food and deal with the environmental exposure assessment of pesticides in the context of applications received for the marketing and use of pesticides in Ireland.

On the pesticide substances mentioned in the proposed directive, the use of most of them is no longer authorised in Ireland. The use of plant protection products containing many of the pesticide substances listed is no longer authorised here. Some of the substances being used in Ireland include chlopyriphos and isoproturon. Current information on monitoring results for these substances indicates the proposed standards would not impact on their use. Another legislative measure in regard to pesticides, the thematic strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides, provides a range of controls for the use phase of pesticides in regard to environmental quality breaches. The measures to be elaborated on under the strategy apply in the case of an environmental quality breach. Based on the information available to us on the particular substances mentioned, in general we believe the consequences will be minimal.

Deputy Upton

I thank the delegation for the presentation and update. We must welcome such directives which co-ordinate and update information. It is much more practical and sensible to have it packaged as a unit.

On the 1976 directive, I presume a new list of developed and progressed chemicals is being considered for inclusion in the directive. What implications, if any, are there if that is the case? I have one question for Mr. Moody who stated the impact of the directive on agriculture would be minor, given that the use of many of the chemicals currently listed is no longer permitted in Ireland.

On the implications for the consumer and on pesticide residues in general, does Mr. Moody have responsibility for testing such products on a regular basis? If so, what are the findings in that regard?

We are interested in industry response. Agriculture is the one we are most interested in today and the one Mr. Sadlier claims is least affected. Has he flagged it for the agriculture industry and has he had any informal response indicating what it might mean for food producers and the producers of chemicals in so far as they might be affected here?

Mr. Sadlier

On the Deputy's most recent question about flagging the issue, at the moment our liaison has been directly with the pesticides control service in the Department of Agriculture and Food regarding the agricultural impacts. For several years the Environmental Protection Agency has chaired a working group on dangerous substances. The group comprises representatives of different sectors and has participated in the process of developing standards and even developing the proposals on this directive.

The 1976 directive is the directive that gave rise to the Water Pollution Act 1977, requiring licences for the discharges to water, etc. It left most responsibility to member states for identifying substances of specific relevance in those states. The European Commission and the European Union as a whole were not very successful in developing water quality standards applying on an EU-wide basis. It ran into boggy ground fairly quickly. Only six or seven daughter directives with specific quality standards were adopted. The dangerous substances directive was implemented very unevenly in the European Union. A primary purpose of this directive is to bring a much greater degree of consistency across the European Union in developing and applying these standards.

In Ireland we had generally taken the view that the majority of the substances indicated in the 1976 directive were not of relevance here. They were simply not a cause of water quality problems here. It was quite late in the day — I believe 2001 — when regulations were made here specifying standards for 14 specific substances in addition to the standards that had already been agreed at EU level. The European Commission takes the view that we should have done considerably more and should have developed standards for a much broader range of substances. We always took the position that they were not of relevance in Ireland. Unfortunately we did not have the monitoring data to prove our position. In recent years we have again needed to set in place monitoring. For example, in the 12 months from May 2005 the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government initiated the most comprehensive and detailed monitoring programme for dangerous substances in water with a view to determining with some degree of certainty and finality what substances are and are not of significance in Ireland. That is a major help to us in considering this proposal and the way forward.

That screening and monitoring programme monitored more than 200 substances and we have identified possibly 39 of relevance in an Irish context. Of relevance means that they appear in Irish waters — not necessarily at problem levels — and therefore we need to analyse the results of the monitoring programme more fully and we must then consider in how many cases it would be necessary to develop quality standards and have ongoing monitoring in place. That work is still under consideration following the intensive 12-month monitoring and screening programme. The Environmental Protection Agency has commenced a permanent and ongoing monitoring programme for dangerous substances in Irish waters. It will give the Department solid and reliable data in the coming years as it develops environmental objectives, river basin management plans and other programmes and measures. We will make sure that can happen on an informal basis. We have been doing much more monitoring since 2005. We have a much better handle on what is and is not of relevance to Irish waters. The Commission successfully took infringement proceedings against Ireland. There has been a court judgment against Ireland for its failure to improve water quality standards and to develop programmes and measures to implement those standards. The Department has to treat this area as a high priority and to make progress with it quite quickly. I will ask my colleague, Mr. Pat Duggan, to comment on the specific substances that might be included in any new range of substances. He will speak about the difference between the position in 1976 and the current position.

Mr. Pat Duggan

Mr. Sadlier mentioned the 1976 directive, which will be updated by the proposed priority substances directive and the wider requirements of the water framework directive. There have been developments in our understanding of the impact of chemicals since the introduction of the directive 30 years ago; for example, many new chemicals are in general use. Not only have the eight substances mentioned in the original 1976 directive, for which standards were set at EU level, been incorporated in the new directive, but a further 33 new substances have also been identified at EU level. A specific requirement of the priority substances directive will be to set standards at EU level in respect of the 41 substances that are seen to be of possible EU-wide concern. A wider requirement under the water framework directive, which mirrors an existing requirement under the dangerous substances directive, will oblige member states to identify substances, in addition to the 41 substances to which I referred, which may be of concern, may cause problems or may be discharged in significant quantities at river basin level or national level within member states. That is part of the ongoing exercise in which we have been engaged over the past two or three years

Mr. Sadlier mentioned the national screening programme which has been in place for approximately 18 months and the results of which are starting to emerge. Some 17 surface water sites were monitored on a monthly basis over 12 months and a number of other sites were monitored over a shorter period. The programme, which had two purposes, took into account the 41 substances being proposed for standard-setting under the priority substances directive, as well as all other substances we felt were likely to be discharged into Irish waters. The latter list of substances was developed in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, including the pesticide control unit, which would have known the chemicals used for that purpose in Ireland. While we have not yet completed our analysis of that work, we are familiar with some of its outcomes, which are outlined on page 4 of the background note we have submitted to the committee. The note lists the substances — from the total of 41 substances in the directive — in respect of which the standards proposed in the priority screening directive were identified in the extensive screening survey as possibly being breached. When one examines that list and sees the types of use and emission sources in each case, one finds that by and large they are flame retardants or products that arise from furniture, clothing, etc. They are issues which, if they arise here, will also arise in most other EU member states. They are problems we will have to address at Community level.

Table 1 on page 7 of the briefing note lists a further 39 substances which are of possible national concern. None of these is included in the other list of 41 substances, but they have been identified at some concentration on foot of the intensive screening programme we put in place. We may have to set standards in respect of the 39 substances, which is a task we are obliged to undertake as a member state under the general requirements of the water framework directive, as distinct from the particular requirements of the priority substances directive. We are still at an early stage in our analysis of the substances and a great deal of consultation remains to take place with interested parties and stakeholders on the implications in the context of advancing to the next stage.

Mr. Sadlier

It is important to note that to get a firm handle under the national screening and monitoring programme on what substances were in the environment, the sites selected were those at highest risk of containing the substances in question. Monitoring for substances of the type which might emerge from sewage treatment was, therefore, carried out downstream of a major urban area sewage treatment plant. The monitoring did not represent general monitoring of the environment or a representative sample of Irish waters, but rather a monitoring of the highest risk sites. We have therefore obtained the fullest, starkest picture of what substances may be in the environment. There is no question of attempting to underplay or suppress any problems.

Mr. Moody

A question was asked on pesticide residue monitoring. The Department of Agriculture and Food analyses pesticide residues and a large range of active substances in a variety of food matrices. While I am not directly involved in the area, I am aware that the results are published annually by the Department. I understand the thematic strategy envisages that environmental monitoring of pesticides will be addressed by the requirements of the water framework directive.

Senator Coonan

I welcome Mr. Sadlier and his colleagues to the meeting to explain the directive to members. I declare an interest as a farmer. As a farmer in Dublin for the day, I thought I would be free of the nervousness of having to face an agricultural inspector without notice. However, Mr. Moody put the heart crossways in me, as happens to most farmers when they hear a reference to an agricultural inspector. Deputy Upton said the directive is likely to have a minimal impact on agriculture, but I do not agree. There is no such thing as a minimal impact in any directive where it applies to agriculture. For some reason or other, Government edicts applying directives are zealously if not overzealously enforced in the context of agriculture. That has been my experience over the years and it is one which most people in agriculture will recognise.

Mr. Sadlier said the directive represented the modernisation of the 1976 legislation on the management of river basins. The River Drish in Thurles has been polluted from the Lisheen mine and closed to the farming community and general public as a result. That happened despite the fact that under the mining licence there was to be intensive monitoring by the Environmental Protection Agency. The agency missed the pollution which had to be brought to its attention by the mining company itself. It was brought to its attention when it had become so serious that the pollution had to be taken from the river and placed in the company's tailing ponds, as is still the case.

Will the delegates address the issue of monitoring? Will it be as intensive as the monitoring on foot of all agricultural directives? Will the delegates outline the impact of chemical sprays and pesticides used by farmers? There is already a closed period in which they can be used. During the good weather at Christmas, for example, farmers were not able to spray their stubble and plough because they were precluded from doing so.

Will there be common sense in the directive? The nitrates directive, for example, ordains that farmers cannot spread slurry until 16 February. There was a closed period prior to Christmas when the weather was excellent and suitable for spreading. However, on 16 January every river in the country was running black because farmers had to get it out. It is easy to say that if they had aggregate stores, this would not happen, but the fact is that if there were more common sense regarding the weather in Ireland, it would not happen either and everybody would benefit.

Does the monitoring of river basins cover silt produced by other major companies such as Bord na Móna? Will silt be tested for some of the substances that might be harmful in rivers? Will the delegates deal with these topics before I say any more?

Deputy Crawford

The Senator has covered some of the topics from a farming perspective. No matter what directive is introduced, it will certainly have major implications. Every day we discover new implications. One was evident on the Meath border this morning. A certain person carried out an act of charity in June 2005 and now finds himself going to jail, all because he did everything the Department and Garda had told him to do, but that is another story. Deputy Upton should note that when we worry about these regulations, we have very good reason to do so. We realise how some of them are put into play.

My main concern is that the directive will have further implications in terms of what can or cannot be used. This may affect the profitability of crop production in Ireland at a time when we are importing an increasing amount of product. Are all the products being imported monitored by the Department of Agriculture and Food to ensure they have been produced according to the same high standards of protection? After all, it is the consumer who we are trying to protect from dangers. It is pointless forcing our producers to adhere to the highest possible standards if we import goods produced to a lower standard, as we are doing in the poultry and beef regimes. Brazilian beef is still entering the country and there is no doubt that it is not produced according to the same regulations.

I have often reminded the Chairman that when we visited the USA, we saw at first hand products being produced with steroids and growth promoters. Whatever was practical to use was being used and farmers admitted it freely, yet when I raised the matter in the Dáil Chamber, I was told farmers there were operating within world health regulations. We seem to be using different world health regulations from others. I fully understand and appreciate the difficulty, but we must toe the line at European level. The Department must ensure a minimum number of regulations are imposed as a result because many farmers have left agriculture because they cannot deal with any more red tape.

Senator Scanlon

I have questions on the dipping of sheep, the disposal of the run-off after they have been dipped and the negative consequences for some sectors, including the use of pesticides. Are there any other negative consequences for farming or farmers?

Deputy Naughten

From an agricultural perspective, do any of the figures included in the first table have implications for agricultural usage? As cobalt and copper would be used, would Mr. Moody address that question?

There has been a debate on the use of fluoride in the water supply. Is this possibly the source of contamination or are we talking about manufacturing industry?

Deputy Blaney

I welcome the directive. Until now we have heard a lot from the other side but this could benefit agritourism. There are many rivers with potential that has not been realised because of pollutants. The directive has been flagged, unlike the others, and we can get to work on it in time and it may not be so stringent as a result. I look forward to its implementation, as it will be good for many of our rivers.

Mr. Sadlier

I endorse Deputy Blaney's comments. As there is much consultation work to be done, we can be clear on the impact of the proposed standards on each sector and the substances that may have to be reduced or ceased altogether.

The directive will give rise to a win-win situation for Ireland. The European Union carried out a regulatory impact assessment of the 41 substances and, on a broad basis, the conclusion was that the potential benefits and costs roughly matched. There are potential winners and losers — the losers are those who may have to carry costs or change their practices in some way. These are typically people outside Ireland such as manufacturers of chemicals. In an Irish setting the winners are the environment, public health protection, tourism and angling. That is our general opinion, without going into detail on every substance. The general impact appears to be beneficial to Ireland.

It is a requirement in terms of the impact and how to address it, if this directive establishes a water quality standard that identifies the point at which a particular substance might rise above the safe levels. Each member state must carry out monitoring to see to what extent that substance may be present in waters and identify its source, the impact and what measures to take to keep it within acceptable limits. It is a requirement on member states to bring forward the most cost-effective solutions. Member states must take adequate measures to identify what sectors bear what costs. If they try to control the substance they must find the most cost-effective way to do so, and what policy instruments must be adopted. That is built into this process.

Fluoride does not appear in this proposal. It is a matter of concern in respect of drinking water to which it is added in the treatment process. The debate on fluoride in drinking water has been well aired in many other areas and there is little benefit in discussing it here.

I would like to ask my colleagues, particularly Mr. Moody to deal with questions about the impact on agriculture and the use of chemicals, pesticides and sheep dips.

Chairman

Before Mr. Moody begins his response I apologise for the failure to display members' names but unfortunately the system is down.

Mr. Moody

In respect of the pesticide substances that this legislation proposes to regulate, the position is set out in table 2 on page 7 of the background document. I referred to this previously, saying that most of the substances are not used in plant protection products in Ireland. The preliminary screening data do not indicate a problem with the current use of those substances.

There was a question about other substances of concern for agriculture. The list of 39 substances in table 1 includes several pesticides, for example, No. 10, epoxyconazole, glyphosate, malathion, mancozeb, maneb and mycoprop are approved for use in Ireland. No. 22, thiram, and No. 29, 2,4-D, are used here. Cypermethrin is a sheep dip chemical, which I will deal with shortly. There are several pesticides on this list which might cause concern nationally because they are approved for use here. The inclusion of a substance on this list does not indicate any cause for concern. Mr. Duggan might be able to give further details on the derivation of this list. I understand substances were assessed against a screening reference concentration, which in itself was set at a low level. If any substance was detected at a level in excess of 0.25 of that low screening reference level, it was included in the list for possible further consideration in developing more appropriate standards for substances.

Sheep dips are licensed by the Irish Medicines Board rather than by the Department of Agriculture and Food. There are three main active substances approved for use in sheep dips: cypermethrin, diazinon and amitraz. The latter is not on the list. The others are because of concerns in the United Kingdom regarding water quality after the use of cypermethrin in sheep dips. This was an issue we attempted to address in the previous screening programme. We monitored sheep dip sites that used cypermethrin but found no adverse information. They are primarily on the list because it was an issue in the United Kingdom and some river basin districts are transnational. We must take into consideration some UK issues.

Mr. Duggan

Under the water framework directive, we are legally required to set standards for chemical substances at EU level. This is being progressed by the proposed directive. There is an additional wider requirement under the water framework directive and a legal obligation on member states to identify other chemical substances. This is in addition to those priority substances which may be released or present at significant levels in Irish waters. Ireland must respond to this legal obligation under the directive. We have put in place a comprehensive and intensive national dangerous substances screening programme, of which this is the outcome. We monitored 200 substances at 17 surface water sites, including industrial waste and sewage effluents. These were representative of the most high risk areas, including the vicinity of large urban areas, industrial areas such as Cork Harbour and those in which there is significant use of agricultural chemicals.

The outcome of the screening programme is a list of 39 substances. This does not mean any of the 39 substances causes pollution of waters. By pollution I mean it is present at a concentration above an acceptable level that will give rise to problems. We took a precautionary approach in looking at these surpluses and to clarify this there is a footnote on page 5 which reads:

The inclusion of a substance in Table 1 does not suggest pollution of waters by that substance. A precautionary approach was adopted in the identification of substances. For example, all substances detected had an annual average concentration above 0.25 of a ‘benchmark concentration' (i.e. a precautionary screening concentration used in the absence of a derived EQS) were included as possible relevant substances.

That is a starting point. These are all steps and stages in an ongoing process that will come to a conclusion. The 39 substances in 17 limited sites have been included as part of the national chemical monitoring programme, to be initiated this year for water framework directive purposes. We will get wider coverage and understanding of these matters and move the thing on. That is essentially where we are. It does not mean that any of these substances are known to be causing problems at this stage. It may be that as we move through this process that will be the case, and we are obliged in law to regulate those substances in the event.

Senator Coonan

Mr. Sadlier did not address what I mentioned as regards monitoring. I too should like to add to Mr. Duggan's point, as he has quoted from the footnote about the quantity of dangerous substances that can exist. I have heard this story before as regards pollution from the mines. We were told the concentrations were at a safe level and there was ongoing monitoring. However, the fact is that when the silt was upset a high concentration of dangerous chemicals was found and the river had to be closed off at enormous expense to local farmers and to the community as regards fishing and the concerns for children. How effective is the monitoring? This was going on for a period of six years and suddenly a crisis was highlighted due to the diligence of the mining company — perhaps because some local people were involved in the analysis, prompting somebody to speak up.

Is this directive solely directed at the agriculture community? The Department has not mentioned the pollutants that might come from upstream, say, from industrial plants such as the one I have spoken about, or from local authorities, which are among the biggest polluters. My concern is that the directive is being targeted directly at the farmer. He or she will have to carry the can and once more pay the piper.

Deputy Naughten

To follow on SenatorCoonan's point, in the past there has been criticism of the monitoring points used by the Environmental Protection Agency as regards its general water analysis. I wonder whether these are now the monitoring points that will be used for the analysis of these chemicals. The criticism was that these monitoring points were not close to outfalls from the public water and sewage treatment systems and had been kept away from them so as not to cause difficulties in that regard. Perhaps the Department might comment on that.

I had the impression that this list was to do with chemicals that were found in the environment. As regards fluoride, I know there is an issue in relation to drinking water and that is a separate matter. However, is it possible that the source of the fluoride found in the environment could be from the fluoride that is used as an additive in our drinking water? Does this subsequently end up in waste water treatment works and ultimately in the environment?

As regards the chemicals mentioned by Mr. Moody, what are these five substances being used for within the agriculture sector? When the nitrates directive was coming into force we were told it would reduce the amount of fertiliser being spread which would have significant benefits for the environment. However, it was a very different story in practice. Our concern is with the impact of the directive at farm level. The then Minister for Agriculture and Food is quoted as saying that most farmers did not need to worry about the nitrates directive and initially farmers believed him. Now every farmer is being penalised because of that directive.

Chairman

Have members more supplementary questions?

Deputy Crawford

An issue I raised earlier was the impact of bureaucracy and red tape which presents difficulties for people. Do we monitor whether imports are subject to the same level of bureaucracy in the country of origin?

Mr. Sadlier

I will address the questions on fluoride. Let me apologise to the joint committee for saying earlier that fluoride does not appear on the list. It is one of the 39 substances of some significance that we identified as appearing in Irish waters. I emphasise the difference between being significant as opposed to being insignificant and that there may not be any problem in relation to it. However, fluoride appears on the Irish list of 39 substances but I cannot recall where it is on that list.

Fluoride can occur naturally, depending on the geology of an area which varies significantly in different parts of the world. I assume fluoride discharges from drinking water treatment plants could have an effect on fluoride levels in the environment. The local authorities add fluoride to water that is being treated to produce water of drinking quality. It is specifically added to water as a public health measure to prevent dental disease and local authorities are charged with responsibility to ensure that the amount that is added falls within specified parameters. Drinking water is monitored intensively by local authorities and the Environmental Protection Agency. In fact, in the next day or two, the EPA will publish an annual report on drinking water and a report on dangerous substances.

I must acknowledge concerns about our sources. The substances on the list are relevant to other sectors. Local authority treatment plants are being monitored. The reports of the EPA have drawn attention to shortcomings in the management of local authority sewage and drinking water treatment plants. The inevitable response to that is that the Minister must ratchet up the level of supervision of local authority treatment plants.

The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has definitive proposals on the licensing of local authority sewage treatment plants. This will strengthen the degree of supervision of such plants. The introduction of such an arrangement will be similar to the licensing of landfill sites, whether operated by a local authority or private company, which were a means of improving the standard of operation. Any shortcomings in the operation of drinking water treatment plants will be highlighted by the EPA in its annual report on water quality, which will be published tomorrow. Ireland has been commended for the degree of transparency in its reporting on drinking water quality.

With regard to other sources, I have said agriculture is the sector least likely to be impacted on by this priority substance directive which might not even have a great impact on activities in Ireland. However, if I had to identify the sectors most likely to be hit, local authority sewerage treatment plants may be hit for various reasons, as well as other sources such as the run-off from roads that contains chemicals from vehicle exhausts. We may have to look at these relatively new areas in the control of chemical pollution of waters. However, agriculture is not at the top of the list in the directive. It is the firm commitment of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to address every source of water pollution. This is inevitable because the entire process under the water framework directive requires us to reveal systematically every problem, every substance and its level in water, the measures that might be needed and those that will be taken. It demands transparency.

By 2009, a river basin management plan must be adopted, with environmental objectives and a programme of measures included. The draft plan must be published in 2008. In order to inform people of the significant measures proposed, the authorities involved must publish an overview of our investigations by June 2007 which will outline the significant water management issues emerging from the work already done. We are moving towards a process of transparent revelation of water management issues and what needs to be done to address them.

Mr. Duggan will answer the questions about the monitoring of silt and the adequacy of monitoring.

Mr. Duggan

The comment related to Lisheen Mines. I would like to explain the water framework directive before coming to that issue.

The water framework directive proposes to establish at EU level environmental quality standards for a range of substances. There is a general requirement on individual member states to identify the relevant chemical substances and set standards at national level. The monitoring programme for natural waters has been reviewed extensively in the past 18 months. The Environmental Protection Agency has been specifically required to prepare and publish a monitoring programme to satisfy the requirements of the water framework directive. That programme was published by the agency and agreed to by the Minister. Its particular elements and functions were assigned by the EPA.

The EPA has developed a representative monitoring network for all rivers, lakes and marine surface waters. The job of sampling and collecting data on those sites starts this year. When the first river basin plan is in place in 12 or 18 months' time, we will be in a position nationally to classify all those waters using this monitoring data, these types of standards and other information that is required to be included in the classification. There is a legal obligation on the State to submit formally to the European Union a map of all our rivers and lakes, including a graphical indication in the case of each ground water body whether it complies with the standards. Where a particular stretch of river fails to comply with the standards, including the chemical standards that will be established, there is an obligation on us to take action to correct that.

I do not wish to comment specifically on the Lisheen mine because I am not familiar with the case other than a general awareness that heavy metals were probably discharged into the river there. I expect that particular river will be shown in the reporting procedure under the water framework directive, as failing—

Senator Coonan

I do not wish to dwell on this and I will not say any more about it.

Mr. Duggan

—to achieve a good chemical status.

Senator Coonan

I am concerned with the effectiveness of the monitoring.

Chairman

Senator Coonan should allow Mr. Duggan to continue.

Mr. Duggan

There will be an obligation on the State somehow to fix it, if it can be fixed.

Senator Coonan

It can be fixed and it is fixed.

Mr. Duggan

Okay.

Senator Coonan

My point is that the monitoring that took place over a period of six years was simply not effective. The problem arose despite this ongoing monitoring.

Mr. Duggan

That probably goes back to the original legislation. What we are undertaking is essentially a strengthening and improving effort.

Senator Coonan

Such problems would not arise in the case of an agricultural directive.

Mr. Duggan

What we are doing here, as we were required to do throughout the entire process, is improving the controls for the management of water, as set out in legislation. Nobody claims that past implementation of policy in this area was perfect. We are engaged in a process of improving the controls and we wish to take as correct an approach as possible. That is our objective.

Mr. Moody

I reiterate our previous contention that this legislation will have minimal impact on pesticide use because most of the substances in question are not currently authorised in this jurisdiction. The need for particular measures relating to the use of a pesticide will only arise if a particular substance in a particular water body is found to be in breach of an established environmental quality standard. In such cases, measures to ensure the compliance standard is met will be assessed.

I mentioned earlier that general measures to ensure responsible use of pesticides are being considered as part of the thematic strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides, which is under discussion at EU level. It is envisaged that the measures set out under this strategy will ensure compliance with the objectives of the water framework directive. I am not familiar with all the details of the thematic strategy, but I understand it is examining such issues as training requirements for professional users of pesticides and certification and calibration of application equipment.

Mr. Tim Morris

The parametric value for fluoride in our drinking water regulations is under review by the Minister. Mr. Sadlier referred to the licensing of urban waste water treatment plants. The Minister is also considering proposals for supervision of the drinking water remit of the sanitation authorities.

Chairman

I thank the delegates for their attendance and for the way in which they responded to members' questions.

Is it agreed that the clerk to the joint committee will prepare a draft report on its discussions today for the next meeting? Agreed. Is it agreed to go into private session to discuss a few housekeeping matters? Agreed. Is it agreed to suspend the meeting for two minutes to enable the witnesses to withdraw? Agreed.

Deputy Crawford

I apologise on behalf of Deputy Naughten. He was obliged to leave to speak in the Dáil.

Sitting suspended at 4.17 p.m. and resumed in private session at 4.19 p.m.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 7 February 2007.