Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action debate -
Tuesday, 7 Nov 2023

Citizens' Assembly Report on Biodiversity Loss: Discussion (Resumed)

An Cathaoirleach

The meeting will be split into two sessions. The first is with representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. Also with us is Professor Mark Scott. The second session will be with officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The purpose of the sessions is to examine the recommendations contained in the report of the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss. Both sessions are looking at the recommendations related to land use and water quality.

On behalf of the committee, I welcome from the EPA: Dr. Eimear Cotter, director of the office of evidence and assessment; Dr. Jenny Deakin, senior scientist in that office; and Ms Mary Gurrie, programme manager in the same office. Joining us online is Professor Mark Scott, dean in the school of architecture, planning and environmental policy in University College Dublin.

I remind our guests of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of a person or entity. If their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, I will direct them to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.

I remind our witness who is attending remotely from outside the Leinster House campus that there are limitations to parliamentary privilege. By not being on the campus, he may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness physically present on the campus.

Members of the committee 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 Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I remind members that they are only allowed to participate in this meeting if they are physically located in the Leinster House complex.

I ask members who are joining us online to confirm prior to making their contributions that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House complex.

I call Dr. Cotter to make her opening statement.

Dr. Eimear Cotter

I thank the committee for inviting the EPA to discuss the recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss. I am joined by senior management colleagues, Ms Mary Gurrie and Dr. Jenny Deakin, who deal with water quality monitoring and assessment in the EPA.

This meeting is focusing on water quality – rivers, lakes, estuaries, coastal and groundwaters – upon which resilient and diverse aquatic ecosystems are so dependent. The quality of Ireland’s surface water resource is under significant pressure from human activities. The EPA’s most recent assessments show that just over half, or 54%, of surface waters are in a satisfactory condition, which means that a large number are not in good ecological health. The picture for our estuaries is even starker, with only 36% in a satisfactory ecological condition. The scale of the challenge to bring all water bodies to good or better ecological health by 2027, as required by the water framework directive, is therefore significant.

The quality of our waters is being damaged by activities that release pollutants into the water environment and damage the physical integrity of water habitats. The main causes are: the run-off of nutrients, sediment and pesticides from agricultural lands and farmyards; activities such as land drainage, navigational dredging and the presence of barriers such as dams, weirs and culverts in water courses; discharges of poorly treated sewage from urban wastewater treatment plants, domestic treatment systems and storm water overflows; and run-off of nutrients and sediment from forestry operations.

To address these pressures, the EPA highlights three areas for consideration by the committee that align with some of the recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss. The EPA agrees with the citizens' assembly that there needs to be a greater focus on the implementation and enforcement of biodiversity-related legislation. Our view is that full implementation and compliance with all existing environmental legislation is a must for the environment. Indeed, the European Commission, through its environmental implementation reviews, has highlighted areas where there is poor implementation of environmental law in Ireland. This includes a need to complete the Natura 2000 designation process for terrestrial and marine environments to ensure the legal protection of habitats and species. An increased focus on the protection of the marine environment is also required and the control of invasive species is important.

The EPA, as Ireland’s environmental regulator and through our oversight role of local authorities, will continue to ensure that environmental compliance and enforcement actions are prioritised and implemented. It is critical that local authorities fully implement and enforce the environmental legislation for which they are responsible, including agricultural inspections, septic tank inspections and trade effluent licensed discharges.

The assembly recommended more co-ordinated action and an overarching strategic approach at national level to address the biodiversity crisis. The EPA’s view is that there is now a significant opportunity to develop an overall integrated national environmental policy position. This would ensure that existing environmental protection measures succeeded and did not compete or have unintended consequences. Such a policy position could set out an ambition for protecting Ireland’s environment in the short, medium and long terms with the aim of having a clean and healthy environment that is valued and protected by all. Regarding water specifically, the next river basin management plan, which is almost two years overdue, is urgently required to provide a commitment on the necessary measures and clarity about roles, responsibilities and the timeframes for delivery.

The EPA encourages the committee to consider the need for targeted measures to achieve outcomes in water quality and the protection of aquatic ecosystems and biodiversity. Targeted measures should be specific to local conditions such as soil types, physical settings and water quality. A one-size-fits-all approach will not deliver the water quality and biodiversity outcomes that we need. The EPA has produced a range of tools and models to support the development of targeted measures, often referred to as the right measure in the right place.

As well as being essential for our health and well-being and our economy, clean water is essential for nature and wildlife, both for species that live in the aquatic environment and those that depend on it. Many of our national protected areas and habitats depend on good water quality. The EPA’s role in regulating emissions to air, water and land and radiological protection, and in providing the evidence base on the pressures impacting on the environment, supports the protection of nature and biodiversity. In this submission, we have highlighted three areas of focus for the committee that align with some of the recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss, covering full implementation and compliance with existing environmental legislation, policy coherence and the need for targeted measures.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Dr. Cotter and call on Professor Scott to make his opening statement.

Professor Mark Scott

I thank the committee for the invitation to speak today. I co-authored the report on the socioeconomic dimensions for land use for phase 1 of the land use review. I currently chair the Government's technical working group for phase 2 of the land use review.

Obviously, our focus is on how we use land. We consider land as a fundamental and finite resource with human and environmental dimensions. Land and its various uses provide the foundation of our national economic prosperity, quality of life and well-being, and cultural identity. Its management is also of critical importance in addressing global environmental priorities. These include climate change mitigation and adaptation, addressing biodiversity loss, food and energy security, and sustainable water management.

The land use review provides an opportunity to think about how we use land and how to maximise the benefits for the environment, economy and across society. How we use land can best be thought of in terms of a system. In this context, the land use system refers to the relationship between human activities on land, socioeconomic conditions and the natural environment, and also the systems of governance which manage these different interactions. This approach recognises the critical importance of social and economic drivers of land use change. These include demographic changes, social attitudes, traditions and social norms, individual behaviours, land ownership, and competing economic sectors seeking to maximise profit opportunities.

The land use review also provides a timely opportunity to think about the governance of land use. Land-use governance is currently siloed across sectors and sometimes competing policy agendas, leading to fragmented policy responses. This includes agricultural policy, spatial planning, biodiversity action plans, forestry, climate action plans, and policies relating to energy and minerals. There is an opportunity to co-ordinate more effectively to optimise land use across a range of policy objectives, including biodiversity.

Phase 1 of the land use review focused on understanding how we currently use our land. In total, ten reports were published in March 2023, the links to which are provided in my submission. These reports focused on various dimensions of land use, including the impacts of land use change on the environment, the socioeconomic aspects, international practice and financial instruments. The reports also highlight key stakeholders, land ownership issues in Ireland, and a policy catalogue of Government policy with a land use dimension. The overall synthesis report also contained 19 recommendations, primarily related to future data requirements and mapping capability to enhance decision-making and monitoring.

Phase 2 of the land use review commenced in September of this year. It comprises a technical working group, which I chair and a stakeholder group. Both of these groups report to an oversight group, chaired by Ms Geraldine Tallon.

The second phase, following on from the first, will seek to optimise land use across key Government objectives, including socioeconomic, climate, biodiversity, water, and air quality outcomes.

The technical working group is at a very early stage of its work. Our work plan includes four work packages. The first is clarification of environmental and socioeconomic objectives. The second relates to the identification of land use scenarios to achieve environmental and socioeconomic objectives. The third work package moves into setting out potential policy options for consideration and the fourth revolves around implementing the recommendations of phase 1.

Our current work is focused on understanding land commitments across the full range Government policy. This builds on phase 1 which developed a policy catalogue. We are currently collecting data across the full range of Government Departments and related agencies in relation to their land use commitments. This includes land use obligations and discretionary land use commitments and aspirations.

This work will also examine the compatibility or incompatibility of land-use commitments across various Government policies to try to understand the potential for multifunctional land uses or stacked land uses. This work will also be used to inform the initial stakeholder engagement process. Finally, a work plan for 2024 is currently under development.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Professor Scott for his opening statement and invite members to indicate if they want come in with questions.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

How much time do we have?

An Cathaoirleach

We have agreed five minutes per speaker generally but I will give some latitude. We have four guests. I will cut speakers off if I feel they are speaking for too long.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee on the important issue of assessing the report of the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss. I thank the EPA for the important work it does with research and monitoring etc. This does not always get acknowledged but it is important we acknowledge it here.

I wish to speak about water quality obviously, but also on the derogation issue which has had a lot of coverage over the last number of weeks. I come from west Cork, a region in which dairy is an incredibly important sector. It is an important sector in the whole county but it is even more important in west Cork for employment and the rural and regional economy, etc. Obviously, the Commission's recent reduction in the stocking rate from 250 kg to 220 kg has had an impact. Many farmers are incredibly concerned. Many of them are questioning the viability of their farms, especially smaller dairy farmers who may be milking 60 or 70 cows. Due to the impact this will have, they may lose ten or 15 cows, which will impact their viability. I do not question the EPA's science. I am aware that this has been called into question in the past. It monitors the pollution levels of a water body such as an estuary, river or lake, and gets results which show whether those levels are improving or deteriorating. We cannot dismiss that information.

I want to discuss the solution and how best to go about improving water quality while holding onto a viable indigenous industry - the dairy industry - which is most impacted by reduced stocking rates. While I do not believe the EPA science should be called into question, the Teagasc science should also be taken seriously and we should be listening to some of its recommendations. I have visited the Timoleague catchment area a number of times. The witnesses may or may not be familiar with the work that is being done there as part of a 15-year research project. Water quality is being assessed; specifically, the extent to which nitrates are entering the river and eventually going into the estuary. It is quite interesting. I would like the views of the witnesses regarding the potential solution. Clearly, we need to do something about our estuaries. I see it myself. Many of our estuaries on the south-west coast have algal blooms, sea lettuce in particular. This is impacts biodiversity, takes all the oxygen and has a detrimental impact. There is no doubt that we need to improve the situation there. The question comes down to what the ideal solution is.

The Teagasc scientists will say it is far more effective, in terms of improving water quality, to be compliant regarding the storage of slurry and when it is spread. The witnesses may not be able to answer this question but I mentioned a dairy farmer who has 70 cows. Will better improvements in water quality be achieved by taking 15 cows from that dairy farmer but not ensuring he or she is compliant, or would better results be achieved by ensuring, for example, that a farmer does not spread during the closed season? Obviously, the crop is not growing during the closed season and is not taking up the nitrogen, which is therefore more likely to seep into the water body.

Surely measures such as low-emission slurry spreading methods, soil management, and managing phosphorus and potassium levels are far more effective than a blunt reduction in cow numbers.

Dr. Eimear Cotter

I thank Deputy O'Sullivan for the question. The EPA implements the national water quality monitoring programme. As part of this we can see that 54% of our waters are in good condition. This means that 46% of our waters are not. Agriculture is one of the most significant pressures on our water quality, impacting 1,000 water bodies. This is mainly due to nitrates and phosphorus coming off agricultural land into our waters. These issues are particularly acute in the east and south east of the country, where Deputy O'Sullivan has mentioned, down-----

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

Is the phosphorus not more from wastewater treatment plants rather than agriculture?

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Approximately 50% is from agriculture and 50% is from wastewater treatment. To speak about nitrates, what we see overall is that nitrate levels are too high in 40% of our rivers and 20% of our estuaries. These issues are especially acute in the east and south east of the country where we have a combination of more intensively farmed land, as Deputy O'Sullivan has indicated, and good agricultural land with free draining soils where the nitrates move off the land into our waters.

We are very aware of Teagasc's programme in the Timoleague area and I have dealt with many questions on this. There are differences between what we do and what Teagasc is doing in the area. Compared with what we monitor, Teagasc is monitoring a smaller area. Our monitoring takes in the whole of the Argideen river catchment, of which Timoleague is part. It is 88 sq. km, which is approximately ten times larger than the area being monitored by Teagasc in Timoleague. Monitoring by both Teagasc and the EPA shows that nitrate levels are too high. In fact, Teagasc's monitoring shows higher nitrate levels than what we see in the full catchment area.

We are not just measuring nitrates. We are also measuring the biology and what is happening in the waters in terms of the plants, animals and algae. This gives us a full picture of the water quality. This is replicated throughout the country, including in the Argideen river area. Not only do we see the nitrate levels, we also see the impact on the biology. Overall this tells us that the water quality is not satisfactory and that we need to reduce nitrate levels in particular to where they can sustain good water quality.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

I accept that. I know some people do not accept the science but I do. I want to get to the point because of time constraints. With regard to the best approach to improving water quality and stopping nitrates from getting into water bodies, is the reduction of cattle numbers not just a blunt instrument as there is already a lot of naturally occurring nitrogen in the soil? Would a better solution not be the implementation of compliance with measures such as making sure there is no spreading during the close season and perhaps on-farm inspections to make sure this does not happen? We hear from Teagasc that this would achieve far greater results in terms of water quality rather than a blunt instrument such as removing cattle from a farm.

Dr. Eimear Cotter

We highlighted this in our opening statement. There is no one solution that will fix all of our water quality issues. Certainly compliance and enforcement of existing environment legislation are imperative. This includes local authority inspections on farms. In the EPA's oversight of local authority functions, we have consistently said that the number of farm inspections needs to increase. They need to be followed through with regard to non-compliance and taking appropriate enforcement action.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

Would that be more effective than just reducing cow numbers?

Dr. Eimear Cotter

I cannot really say what one particular solution would work. We do not get into the solutions. The EPA looks at the environment and we need to see nitrate levels reduce in our waters. When we see this, we will report it.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

If I could just-----

Dr. Eimear Cotter

It is for agricultural experts in the Department of the Agriculture, Food and the Marine and in Teagasc to put forward solutions that will work. We know from what we see that one solution will not fix our water quality problems, be it for nitrates or the phosphorus sediment we have throughout the country.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

This has a further reaching impact on biodiversity. I was trying to get an answer on the solution and I am not debating the science.

Concerning the overall impact on biodiversity in an area of west Cork, I think there are unintended consequences. I gave the example of a farmer with 60 or 70 cows who, generally, is a one-person operation, is sustainable, and does everything right regarding phosphorous and potassium and storage, etc. However, because of this and because of the reduction in numbers, their operation becomes unviable. It leads to a situation in which that farmer is bought out by bigger, more intensive farms. There is such pressure now on land because of the stocking rate and stocking limit, and there is no tillage in west Cork. Areas that have biodiversity richness and may have bits of scrub or are good for breeding birds, etc., are now being bought or leased by bigger farmers and there is a more expansive spread of perennial ryegrass, which, as we know, has very little biodiversity value, and because-----

An Cathaoirleach

In fairness to our guest, Dr. Cotter is reporting on water quality-----

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

I am just making the point because we are discussing the biodiversity report.

An Cathaoirleach

The Deputy has had enough time.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

I am just making the point that there is an unintended consequence on biodiversity.

An Cathaoirleach

Point made, but I think Dr. Cotter, to be fair, has said that EPA's role is to report-----

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

It was not a question to the EPA; it was just a comment to the committee.

An Cathaoirleach

I am interested, when my turn comes, in talking about the nitrates action plan, about which Deputy O'Sullivan may have something to say. Does anybody else wish to come in on the question? If Professor Scott wishes to come in, he should just indicate. No. I thank Deputy O'Sullivan and go to Deputy Whitmore.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

I thank the EPA for the presentation. I also want to talk about the derogation. I think the EPA will get a lot of questions about that today. I come at it more from the perspective that the reduction of our water quality has been going on for quite a while. It has not just happened last year with the report the EPA produced. Unfortunately, we did not see in years prior sufficient measures put in place by Government through policy to reduce, and we are now at the point at which it will probably be a very blunt instrument of reduction of numbers of cattle. That is because all of those other measures were not put in place over several years. I would argue the Government walked a lot of small farmers in particular off a cliff when it came to those policy decisions.

Is there a risk of that happening again? This was an interim report and the derogation will come under review again at the end of 2025. The current change is the reduction from 250 kg N/ha to 220 kg N/ha. All else remaining the same, and I know it will not because there will be more measures put in place, but all else remaining the same, has the EPA modelled to see whether the reduction from 250 kg N/ha to 220 kg N/ha will mean that the derogation could meet the criteria set down by the EU by the end of 2025? My understanding is that there is a year lag time with nitrate run-off and the impact on water. Does Dr. Cotter think that, in 2025, we could be having a similar discussion and argument and difficulties being caused to the farming community because there will be a further reduction required by the EU?

Dr. Eimear Cotter

We cannot see into the future. We are monitoring what is happening in water quality now. At the moment, many EPA scientists are out in the field taking measurements of our rivers, lakes and estuaries and we will have results for 2023 at the end of this year and, as we go on, we will continue to do that. We cannot say. We have not done detailed modelling of the impact, as Deputy Whitmore asked, into the future.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

The EPA does not model-----

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Projections of this, no.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

Okay. What is the lag time? It is a year or potentially longer?

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Typically, it is about a year. The reason we say that is, when we saw nitrates spiking previously, for example, in drought conditions in 2018, when a lot of fertiliser was applied to land to encourage grass to grow, that washed through in the autumn of 2018 and spring of 2019. We see that response happening in the period of about a year. Typically, based on what we have seen previously, we would expect a response to happen in about a year.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

That is based on rainfall and run-off.

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Yes, that was based on the conditions we saw at that time.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

The question then arises, and it is probably one which Professor Scott could contribute on, where we are obviously seeing a much higher level of rainfall now because of climate change, do our guest speakers believe that will mean there will be more difficulties when it comes to nitrates where this rainfall might actually run everything into the system a great deal more quickly with spate floods happening? What do they believe the impact on run-off will be from the increased rainfall we are seeing?

Dr. Jenny Deakin

The first thing to say is that we will always need the source of nutrients, which is a critical starting point. We have to have the source. The rainfall is the vector or the method by which the nutrients are moved from the land into the waters. For phosphorus, the pathway is over land, so there is a very close correlation between rainfall and phosphorus run-off, and that impacts on our fresh waters. When it comes to nitrate, the pathway is down into the ground and horizontally into the rivers. Absolutely, rainfall is a vector but we always need that source. If we do not have a source, we do not have a problem.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

It comes back to the modelling and whether that reduction from 250 kg N/ha to 220 kg N/ha, and any other measures which may be put in place, will actually get the results we need to see for 2025.

Dr. Jenny Deakin

One thing which is important to say is that we understand from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine that approximately 2,000 farmers will be affected by the derogation cut, but we have 130,000 farmers and we have water quality issues from agriculture right across the country. These are for different reasons, in different places, with different soil types, and different nutrients, pesticides and the whole works. Water quality is not only within the remit of the derogation farmers who are affected to fix but is an issue for the whole sector. There is no doubt that when it comes to two years' time, with the next nitrates action programme, it will be the whole picture which Ireland will be judged upon and not one bit or the other.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

I thank Dr. Deakin and ask Professor Scott if he wants to come in on this question.

Professor Mark Scott

We have not looked at this issue yet within our working group but we will in our work in the new year be looking at the scenarios and at what the projections will be, so that is something we could look at. We have not, however, done any work on that yet.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

I thank the witnesses.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Deputy Whitmore and call Deputy Bruton.

Deputy Richard Bruton

I thank the Chair and our witnesses for the presentations, which were excellent. The fourth of the citizens' assembly's recommendations reads, "The responsibility for the implementation and enforcement of biodiversity related legislation, directives and policies by all state bodies and agencies must be made clear, with each body/agency held publicly accountable for their performance." Which State bodies need to be held publicly accountable in each of the spheres? As I understand it, the EPA is less the enforcer, although it does oversee the local authorities. It is more involved in the data and stepping back, as it were. Which bodies should we be looking at primarily to step up to the plate and do better? Where, in the view of the EPA, do individual parts of this jigsaw fall short?

The EPA's opening statement says its purpose is "to protect, improve and restore our environment through regulation, scientific knowledge and working with others". It sounds like the agency is a mega-powerful one but, from the questioning, we have already seen that the agency's responsibility falls quite a bit short of prescribing what needs to be done and enforcing its implementation. Compared with other bodies or other countries that have been more successful, have bodies like the EPA become more powerful and been given more invasive powers when it comes to the individual sectors? Perhaps the witnesses might talk about best international practice because we are trying to take what the assembly has said to the next steps.

My final question is for Professor Scott. Reading his presentation, it sounds very much exploratory.

We are at a very early stage in identifying where the conflicts arise and how they might be reconciled. Again, what do successful models in other countries look like, where they are much farther down the road than we are? What do we need to anticipate? At the end of the day, one of the challenges will be, as has been said by members of the assembly, how this requires changes in the habits of a lifetime. It is major transformational rethinking. It would be very useful to get an understanding of what sort of rethinking we need to do, and how other countries who have perhaps gone through it could signpost, even at this relatively early stage, how those conflicting objectives can be reconciled.

Dr. Eimear Cotter

I will first set out some of the functions of the EPA. We are the environmental regulator. We regulate 800 large industries, pharmaceuticals, waste and wastewater discharges from Uisce Éireann. We license and enforce those large operators around the country. That is a really important regulatory function that is carried out by the EPA, and that includes looking at water discharges, air and the full integrated environmental impact of large development.

Deputy Richard Bruton

When the assembly says enforcement is very poor, is it pointing the finger at the EPA?

Dr. Eimear Cotter

I am saying that in response to the Deputy's question about the role of the EPA. I am clarifying that, as the environmental regulator, that is what we do. We are also responsible for the oversight of local authorities in terms of overseeing their statutory functions related to the environment. As part of doing that, every year we produce an assessment of which local authorities are doing well and which ones are not, and ensuring consistent environmental standards and environmental legislation are being enforced in a consistent way.

Deputy Richard Bruton

Does that mean that they are being held publicly accountable? The assembly certainly took the view they are not being held publicly accountable to an adequate standard. I am asking. I do not who the person is who ought to be-----

Dr. Eimear Cotter

I am first clarifying the role of the EPA in response to the Deputy’s question. The second part of his question related to who is responsible and who needs to be held accountable. From our point of view, in terms of our oversight of local authorities, every year we have called out where we think local authorities need to up their performance in the implementation of environmental legislation. They are responsible for a significant amount of environmental legislation in Ireland.

In respect to water quality, we have said in our latest assessment that local authorities need to deploy their resources more effectively to protect water quality and air quality. In particular in relation to water quality, which is what we are here to speak about today, that includes implementing the good agricultural practice regulations, which sit under the nitrates directive, increasing the number of farm inspections, following through on those inspections, and taking enforcement action where it is needed.

From our point of view, in terms of who needs to up their performance, we would highlight the very important role of local authorities and their need to deploy more effectively the resources they have now, in particular focusing on air and water quality legislation.

Deputy Richard Bruton

How does the EPA compare with its counterparts in other jurisdictions? In other jurisdictions that are more effective, are there greater powers in respect of local authorities, farm inspectors or whoever it is the EPA here feels ought to be pulling up their socks? Are there more powers in other jurisdictions than the agency has here? It seems as though the EPA is saying more should be done. They are saying whatever they are saying, such as they are doing the best they can within the resources available. We need to try to establish a new chain of command if we are to address this. Where does that lie?

Dr. Eimear Cotter

In terms of other jurisdictions, it is difficult to compare environmental protection agencies. Across the EU, we all have different functions and responsibilities. We are not all constituted in the same way. We meet as part of a network at EU level, so we are therefore very aware of what other EPA equivalents do in other countries. I cannot therefore draw a direct comparison for the Deputy in terms of whether some have powers greater or lesser than the EPA here. I cannot really add much to that.

Deputy Richard Bruton

My last question is to Professor Scott.

What does success in reconciling land use look like?

Professor Mark Scott

I thank the Deputy for the very interesting question. Our work is exploratory in nature at the moment. Phase 1 of the land use review focused on what our land is doing at the moment. We have now moved into addressing the question of what our land ought to do into the future. There are not many countries that are thinking about this in a very connected way. Land use policy tends to be quite fragmented in many jurisdictions across urban and rural areas or between agricultural or more urban focused policies.

When the EPA was dealing with phase 1, it identified 120 or more policy documents in Ireland that had a land use dimension, but we have never really co-ordinated those different policy dimensions. What we are trying to do is quite novel, not just in Ireland but also internationally.

There are some interesting policy debates happening. In respect of our neighbours in the UK, I understand Scotland is on the third iteration of a national land use framework, which is an overarching policy and something many government policies try to align with. England recently introduced ideas around biodiversity net gain in its planning policies. It is experimenting with different nature recovery strategies and local land use frameworks. There is some experimentation but there is no set template for us to follow.

We are trying to develop something around co-ordinated or multifunctional land uses which have multiple cross-sectoral benefits as well. That raises a host of issues around the best scale to work at. Should it be a national land use framework or should it be more localised? What type of policy instruments will work? What incentives should be put in place? Critically, we need to determine how we co-produce or co-design policies with key stakeholders. It is not an expert top-down process. It needs to involve grassroots stakeholders as well.

Deputy Richard Bruton

Will the end product of the work be something like a marginal abatement cost curve, MACC, for land use in which we will begin to see the marginal benefits and how we can establish biodiversity gains by addressing an issue? Can Professor Scott describe the sort of tool that might come out of this work? Is it all very high level stuff like what is happening in Scotland?

Professor Mark Scott

At the moment it is quite an iterative process. We are finding our way into this and we do not have an end product in mind. We are focused on the land use review and have not moved into policymaking. The key focus is on trying to get an understanding of Government commitments across the full range of Departments regarding land use and whether they are compatible. We are also considering whether we can stack land usage. For example, biodiversity is compatible with urbanisation or aspects of farming if done correctly. We have not yet moved into policy and I am not sure what direction we will go in because we are moving quite slowly through the process.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Professor Scott. On Deputy Bruton's question, I wish to ask about the alignment of land use with the immediate targets and policies with which we are trying to grapple, in particular regarding reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 51% by 2030 based on the 2018 baseline. While phase 1 of the land use review comprised critically important data gathering, phase 2 is still exploratory and there is a huge body of work to be done.

Separate from that is the very real and tragic story of the flooding that is happening at the moment. There are immediate challenges. I am wondering about the timeline of the work. I am not saying it is for Professor Scott to develop the policies, but the State needs to develop them very quickly. While we might know what we need to do technically, bringing people on board, changing sectors and nudging them in the right direction is very difficult. I do not know whether Professor Scott wants to comment on his role in arriving at solutions quickly.

Professor Mark Scott

The Cathaoirleach is right in that there are certain things we are obliged to do, such as reduce emissions, and there are also imperatives such as those relating to biodiversity loss. We are aware there are things that must be done and we will certainly be considering those. However, it is not just about environmental policy because we are also examining how land use relates to social objectives, health, well-being and sustainable livelihoods in rural places. We are trying to look holistically – not just at how we shift climate policy but also at how that relates to sustainable farming and sustainable livelihoods in rural Ireland, for example.

To go back to what I said earlier, we should think of land use as a system with various moving parts and try to consider the interaction between them. When you map out the various influences on land use and try to write policy, a quite complex picture emerges. Our first job was to try to get on top of that. Climate obligations relating to nitrates and biodiversity targets are really at the forefront of our minds when we do this work.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Professor Scott for that. What is the timeline for the work?

Professor Mark Scott

We hope to develop an interim report this side of Christmas. It will focus on baselining and land-use objectives across policy. We will be working throughout 2024, with the final draft report due in early 2025.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Professor Scott for that.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

I thank the witnesses. On local authorities' annual reports and capacity, could the witnesses reflect on some of their findings? Do they draw conclusions or get feedback from local authorities on their capacity? Is it a case of capacity, the deployment of resources or the lack of resources, or do the witnesses have an indication one way or another?

A major topic of the citizens' assembly was the enforcement of existing powers, regulations and legislation. Could the witnesses reflect on their experience of taking cases? In this respect, they have a responsibility in some regard.

A specific point was made on policy coherence and it was said there is now an opportunity to develop an overall integrated national environmental policy position. Could the witnesses expand on that point and give us a sense of how such a policy position might be developed? Who are the relevant stakeholders? What might the components of the policy be?

Dr. Eimear Cotter

On the local authority performance, section 63 of the Environmental Protection Authority Act gives the EPA responsibility for overseeing the environmental performance of local authorities. As part of that, we produce an annual assessment. We have recently redesigned the framework to enable us to do that, focusing more on the environmental outcomes.

Rather than local authorities reporting activities to us, we are looking at the outcomes being achieved in the environment. That framework was developed over the past several years, with extensive engagement with local authorities in doing that and them reporting to us. We publish that assessment every year. In that latest assessment, which was for 2021 and was published at the end of last year - we are working on 2022 - the key finding is that they need to deploy and target their resources more effectively to improve the quality of our air and water. For us, it is about them deploying their existing resources. There is not an organisation in the world that would say it could not do with more resources. For us, priority needs to be given to environmental protection implementation and enforcement of existing legislation. That is about more effectively deploying what they have already. Within that, and with water in particular, we want to see local authorities increase the level of farm inspections and enforcement activity to reduce the impact of agricultural activities on water quality. The latest assessment is for 2021, and I know things have improved since then. However, farm inspections are 43% below where they had been pre-Covid. They need to significantly increase again. A really important part of protecting our water quality from agricultural activity is done through local authority work. Those are the two main recommendations relating to water quality and resourcing.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

Is it a similar picture in terms of inspections of septic tanks?

Dr. Eimear Cotter

In general, the national inspection plan for septic tanks is being carried out across local authorities. It is the follow-through actions that are failing.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

I assume Dr. Cotter would be supportive of the increased grant for people to have their septic tanks improved.

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Anything that helps people address their septic tank issues, which are impacting on water quality in areas, is positive. We are supportive of that.

I will deal with national environmental policy and hand over to Ms Gurrie on taking cases. A key recommendation that came out of The State of Environment Report, our major publication, which is published every four years and the latest one of which came out in 2020, was that we need a national environmental policy position. This was in recognition of the fact we have lots of different plans and policies. Some of them are connected, some are competing with each other, some have unintended consequences and intentions, and this is not really looked at in any coherent way. Having a national environmental policy position would set out our overall ambition for environmental protection in the country. It would allow us to express more succinctly the connections between different policy areas and to explore and tease out what the tensions and potential and trade-offs might be. This is something we would like to see happen, and I know there has been a commitment from the Government to produce an environmental policy position, which I believe is under development. We see this as a significant opportunity to look across water quality, biodiversity and the agriculture sector. Many policies will feed into this, and they are only increasing as the environmental dimensions run through all sectors. This would allow some coherence to be brought to environmental protection in the country.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

Where does Dr. Cotter think such a policy should sit in terms of Departments?

Dr. Eimear Cotter

At the moment our parent Department, the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, is leading on this. However, by its nature it will need input from a wide range of Departments to ensure that coherence and connection is real and actually happens.

Ms Mary Gurrie

I will speak to prosecutions. Dr. Cotter covered the fact that the EPA is a regulatory authority over certain industries, including wastewater treatment plants. We have the power to take cases at District Court level. I do not have the exact number at hand because it varies, but it is between 15 and 20 cases per year. That would include industrial waste, maybe unlicensed facilities and some Uisce Éireann facilities, and is based on our enforcement policy.

Local authorities can also take prosecutions. I do not have the numbers to hand. The number of prosecutions is low in the numbers we have highlighted in the water area. Much of the time an issue can be addressed. You do not always have to go to court to get an issue resolved. If there is an ongoing issue, the aim is always to get it stopped and resolved. However, sanction needs to be in the mix too. Sanction for significant breaches of legislation is an important aspect in any enforcement regime. We apply that ourselves and we hope local authorities would. In our local authority performance reports, we have called out that follow through right up to all the enforcement tools, including prosecution, needs to be improved.

Senator Timmy Dooley

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. As we are coming towards the end of the session, many of the questions have been asked.

I will focus on something a little bit more political and operational rather than scientific. There is no disputing the science, quite frankly. From a political perspective, we must try to find the solutions that allow us, insofar as we can, to manage food production, which is an important feature and cannot be taken in isolation. At the same time, we must manage the expectations of our farmers and our citizens generally in the way they live their lives.

One of the biggest difficulties is that the narrative around the emergence of science or the narrative around publication of scientific reports always focuses on the farmer. That is not good because, quite frankly, one starts to make a scapegoat out of certain individuals and it becomes a “them and us”. Having started in a rural environment, gone urban and came back semi-rural, I am taken that there is always a “them and us”. We need to take that out of the debate. When there is this bickering of who is to blame, it gets very difficult. That is why it is important to stick to the science and the solutions.

It would be good to better understand the extent to which the State is a polluter. We work hard with communities to try to get wastewater treatment systems in place – I am working on two at the moment. Officials in the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications are pushing back against the building of treatment systems because, in their mind, it does not meet with the cost-benefit analysis. On the one hand, farmers are being forced to invest more money and change their practice, and the State, on the other hand, through local authorities, is contributing to nitrates in the water. Department officials are pushing against the treatment systems because they are looking at it in terms of a cost-benefit analysis. There is a significant body of work to be done at central government in the first instance. I am not suggesting it is for the witnesses at all, but I am using this opportunity to make the point that until the State is first up and best dressed when it comes to putting in place mitigation measures to address the run-off from its own facilities and the pollution from its own wastewater treatment plants, it is hard to use the stick with other actors and smaller individuals. Discuss.

An Cathaoirleach

It is an interesting question but perhaps not fair to the EPA.

Senator Timmy Dooley

Perhaps that is the frame for my question. To what extent do the EPA representatives see entities other than farming contributing to the problem and how would they quantify that as a percentage? I note that is difficult to do.

Dr. Eimear Cotter

We do that, so I am more than happy to answer the question. I very much go with the Senator’s statement of “stick to the science”. That is what we do; we stick to the science, data and evidence. We are not into scapegoats or apportioning blame.

Senator Timmy Dooley

Absolutely not.

Dr. Eimear Cotter

That is not what we do as an organisation. We have done extensive work to understand what the pressures are on our water environment, and there are multiple pressures.

The most significant pressure is agriculture. It is impacting on 1,000 water bodies. That is a fact; that is the data. It is what the science is saying. However, that is not the only pressure. There are physical changes to our water environment such as draining, dredging, channelisation, which are the second most significant pressure, impacting 450 water bodies.

Senator Timmy Dooley

We might come back to that when Dr. Cotter is finished.

Dr. Eimear Cotter

I will keep going through them. Forestry is the third most significant pressure and the fourth is discharges from urban wastewater. We have done extensive work on characterising and understanding what those pressures are. Urban wastewater discharges are impacting on about 200 water bodies. That number has been going down with the investment we have seen over recent years by Uisce Éireann but 200 water bodies is still too much, with 26 towns and villages still experiencing discharge of raw sewerage and that still ongoing into the environment. We have not shied away from calling that out when we need to in terms of understanding the impacts on water quality. That work is there. It is extensive. It is not really about focusing on any one particular sector.

Senator Timmy Dooley

Sadly, it never gets the same traction or publicity.

Dr. Eimear Cotter

The facts are that agriculture is the most significant pressure but not the only pressure.

Senator Timmy Dooley

On land use and drainage issues, as parliamentarians we often get requests to drain certain pieces of land to benefit certain areas, alleviate flooding and so on.

Dr. Eimear Cotter

We have built up a lot of expertise in this area in the EPA in recent years, understanding how physical changes to our waters such as draining, dredging, channelisation and physical barriers such as weirs, change the shape and flow of a river or water body, which impacts on the water quality. That is the second most significant pressure on our water quality impacting 450 water bodies. It is an area in which our understanding and science are evolving quite quickly. The draft river basin management plan was published two years ago and we are waiting for the final plan to be published. The draft plan has a significant focus in terms of tackling this pressure and putting in place appropriate measures----

Senator Timmy Dooley

This would be on the biodiversity side.

Dr. Eimear Cotter

It is all interrelated but it is about improving water quality and ultimately impacting aquatic ecosystems.

Senator Timmy Dooley

Can we talk a little bit about forestry?

Dr. Jenny Deakin

The impacts from forestry are in this space of drainage and land modification. That is one area. We also see nutrients coming from forestry activities. On occasion we can see some chemical impacts but the nutrients and sediments as well as the form and physical characteristics of the river channels would be the most important.

Senator Timmy Dooley

How do we map that against the stated ambition of the State to carry out intensive afforestation over the coming years in accordance with our commitments around decarbonisation? Does the EPA see it as over-ambitious or impossible? Can we do both? Can we maintain and protect the quality of our water and our plans there, and at the same time utilise afforestation to decarbonise?

Dr. Jenny Deakin

I am sure Professor Scott will have views on this as well but absolutely, there is space in the landscape for us to carry out a wealth of activities and achieve multiple benefits and outcomes in terms of ecosystem services and the food production that has been mentioned already, but also to achieve our environmental objectives. We would hope that will be addressed in the land use review. It is a key aspect of how we get everything we need out of the landscape and get the landscape to deliver for us.

Senator Timmy Dooley

Does Dr. Deakin think, then, that there will be restrictions on where afforestation can take place? If there is a farm with land that is of lesser quality, should we be pushing towards assisting farmers in planting such lands? Should we be mapping the land in terms of the usage to suggest that afforestation in a particular place will have too much negative impact on the river basin in that area?

Dr. Eimear Cotter

That is one of the key findings of phase 1 of the land use review, that we need a land use map and a soil map that is overlain with ecosystems.

If we have this information about what is happening in terms of land, soil and ecosystems, landowners and the Government can make decisions based on evidence of the optimum use of land. Regarding forestry, we see potential for co-benefits between enhancing our carbon sink and also enhancing biodiversity through well-sited and well-designed native woodlands, for example. Therefore, they are not mutually exclusive but it needs to be thought through carefully. For any policy, including forestry, the location and the design need to be considered.

An Cathaoirleach

Does Professor Scott wish to add to those points?

Professor Mark Scott

A lot of great issues were discussed there. The idea of the land use review is to provide a menu of the types of options to allow those decisions to be made more in the political space. The decisions need to be tailored to the correct geographic context environmentally and socially.

I wish to come back on this false divide between urban and rural. The land use review is not just focusing on rural places. Many of the land use sectors are in rural areas and used for farming. However, we are looking holistically at the impacts of urbanisation and how we can enhance biodiversity within our cities. Where should our houses be located? Should there be more compact development in line with the national planning framework? How does that impact on the fragmentation of habitats if it is allowed to be much more deconcentrated? It is certainly looking holistically at land. It is not urban versus rural and should have the support of people whose livelihoods depend on the land as well.

Deputy Paul Murphy

I will start with questions for the EPA. The citizens' assembly report made three recommendations relating to increasing sanctions for polluters of water. Recommendations Nos. 97, 45 and 46 all basically proposed that penalties should be increased and should be linked to the total size of the corporation so that they have a meaningful impact. What is the EPA doing? To what extent is it in the EPA's remit to implement those recommendations? How many prosecutions for pollution of water take place each year? What types of pollutions are people prosecuted for? What sorts of penalties are imposed on people?

I will give one anecdotal example. The River Poddle which goes through my constituency seems to be polluted quite regularly. Some of the issues appear to come from industrial discharge. As far as I know there have never been any prosecutions for it and I am concerned that that might be the case more widely.

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Sanctions are within the remit of the courts. The sanctions and penalties that are levelled in court following a prosecution are not within our gift. We really do not have a role in that. However, as the environmental regulator, we take an average 14 or 15 prosecutions every year across large industries that we regulate under the industrial emissions directive. We also regulate Uisce Éireann and have prosecuted Uisce Éireann 28 times. Five of those prosecutions have concluded this year and significantly related to where wastewater treatment plants impacted on the environment. The powers are there and we use them as we need to. As we mentioned during the discussion, we would like to see more effective implementation and enforcement of environmental legislation by local authorities, in particular as it relates to water quality.

Deputy Paul Murphy

I agree with Dr. Cotter that obviously agriculture linked to land use changes is the number one impact. She did not mention water abstraction. Where would she list that as a factor impacting water quality?

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Deakin might come in on this. Our assessment shows that we do not have major pressure in the country from abstraction of water.

Our current data show about 6% of water bodies are experiencing pressure from water abstraction. A new regulatory regime is coming in to oversee our licensing and the abstraction of water from our waters, which the EPA will oversee as regards issuing licences and enforcement. It will be under the control of a regulatory regime, which is positive. The primary legislation for that was published at the end of last year. We are waiting for regulations and designing the regulatory system as we go. It will be a significantly positive step to see that under regulatory control and put lower pressure on our waters.

Deputy Paul Murphy

Would the EPA like to see the details of water abstractors published? I understand that in June of last year, the EPA was put under pressure by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine not to publish the list of abstractors. It went to the office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information and the list was published but the details of the 150 farms were not listed. Is the EPA's position that they should be published, that it should be public information?

Ms Mary Gurrie

Since 2018, there has been a requirement that anyone abstracting more than 25 cu. m of water a day needs to register with the EPA. That process has been under way since 2018 and we maintain the register. The legislation specifically prevents us from publishing personal details. An access to information on the environment, AIE, request was made for the register to be published. We decided to publish it in recent months. To balance the requirement to provide public access to information with the general data protection regulation, GDPR, and data protection rules, we redacted any information that was considered to be personal. We are looking at it again to see whether there is more information we could put out, but the information on the registration, location, the volume being abstracted and the purpose of the abstraction is all available. It was not the case that the EPA was put under pressure not to release it. That was perhaps incorrectly reported or someone took something out of context. It was not the case that the EPA was put under any pressure by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in relation to that.

Deputy Paul Murphy

The EPA claimed that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, "indicated ... that unless the EPA agrees that data on individual farms and farmers is not made public, the department will not share information on farmers and farms with the EPA". That was not accurate.

Ms Mary Gurrie

It is not a question that relates to the register. The Department does not provide information on who is abstracting water to the EPA.

Deputy Paul Murphy

Does the EPA have total figures for data centres and water abstraction? How much water is abstracted by data centres?

Ms Mary Gurrie

The first question is whether they are abstracting water or are on a mains water supply. If a data centre is on a mains water supply, it would be a commercial customer of Irish Water. If a data centre is abstracting water from its own source, it should be registered. Off the top of my head, I am not sure how many, if any, data centres are registered. We can check and provide the information to the committee, but I suspect based on their locations that many of them would be on the mains water supply.

Deputy Paul Murphy

At least some of them are on mains water. I think some are registered as abstractors, but the EPA would only have the figures for abstractors. It would not have the figures for the Irish Water users. Is that correct?

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Yes, that is right. The register is of direct abstractors above a certain size.

Deputy Paul Murphy

Is that an issue? Should the EPA be recording the data on water usage even if they are not abstracting?

Dr. Eimear Cotter

It is indirectly recorded through Uisce Éireann's entry on the register.

Deputy Martin Kenny

I thank the witnesses for their opening statements. Much of the discussion has, naturally enough, focused on farming and agriculture, due to the issues around that. As the witnesses clearly outlined, it is the largest area we need to try to deal with. I come from the Sligo-Leitrim constituency and nitrates are not the issue for the vast majority of farmers in that area. They are low intensity suckler farmers with a few sheep on the mountains.

It does not really impact them at all. That said, there are issues regarding pollution in our waterways. One of the most significant problems is forestation. Large areas of Leitrim are forestry. It is mainly Sitka spruce. We have many issues with pollution.

The witnesses pointed out the various sectors and the different parts they play in all of this. I recently spoke at length to a retired person who worked in a local authority as an environmental inspector for many years. He told me that, at one time in a large town in the area, there was a breakdown in the sewage treatment system for a couple of months. He said it caused more pollution in those couple of months than there had been with years and years of one-off houses and anything else, because there was such a concentration.

The witnesses mentioned targeted measures and that the one-size-fits-all approach does not or will not deliver what we need. They said we need to look at specific parts of the country and what the issues may be. For instance, County Meath, County Clare or other counties may have different issues that need to be dealt with. The fundamental thing for me is that we need to come up with solutions that are targeted. Most of those targeted solutions will require investment. Senator Dooley spoke about sewage treatment systems. In my area, there is one area near the River Shannon close to where drinking water is extracted from the Shannon where a community is trying to get a group scheme put in for a water treatment system to take away 50 septic tanks in that area. They have been trying to get approval for years and cannot get it. That is one of the big issues. I feel that while we have all this pressure to do things better, at the same time we need resources to do them better. Unless we can find a way of putting pressure on to get those resources in place, we will be dealing with this problem for a very long time.

I appreciate that the witnesses, from what I can hear, are stating what the problems are and where the source of the nitrates or pollutants may be, but how much of the prescription for dealing with that do the witnesses get into?

Dr. Eimear Cotter

On the policies that will be put in place to deal with these issues, investment is not a role for the EPA. I know the Departments of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and Housing, Local Government and Heritage are coming here later. The relevant Government Department is where policies and measures are developed to deal with these issues and to ensure that the investment and resources flow. Where we come into it is to provide the evidence and data to enable decisions to be made and to make sure that they are good quality, evidence-based decisions. As the Deputy says, that is important for all environmental issues and for water quality. All water quality issues are local. It depends on what is happening in a particular area, the land use that is under way, the soil types, the farming practices, if that is relevant, and urban wastewater. We have been through many of the issues today. We provide the evidence and data to support effective policy development but, ultimately, the policy is the responsibility of Government Departments.

We have seen the draft river basin management plan and are awaiting the finalised plan. It is our national water plan for the country and is maybe analogous to our climate action plan. That is where policies and measures will be articulated about who has responsibility, what the timelines are and where the resources flow. We need to see that plan published to tackle the multiple pressures on water quality that we have discussed.

Deputy Martin Kenny

Does the EPA flag or highlight specific solutions that are needed? For instance, if there is a problem in a particular region or waterway, does the EPA get to the stage where it says that if something is not done to improve the infrastructure which is causing this problem, it is going to court? Does that stick work?

Dr. Eimear Cotter

We certainly flag where there are major issues and where we see major impacts on the environment. Getting into the solutions is not the role of the EPA and sectoral expertise is really required to develop those solutions and ensure they will work.

We fund quite an amount of scientific research and have done for the past 20 years. We fund research across the higher education sector, where many of the solutions and technologies are researched and thought through. We are focused on ensuring that thinking and research is brought forward into the policy system. We enable and support that scientific research rather than carrying it out, particularly on the solutions side, as the Deputy asked.

Deputy Martin Kenny

When doing the tests and collecting and collating all the data, it can be clearly identified if there is a pollution problem in an area from an industrial, farming or human waste source. Every year, it is published that a certain number of septic tanks or one-off treatment plants around the country have been inspected and that a large proportion of them have failed. My understanding is that it is intelligence led, in that the water in that half-parish will have been tested and it will have been discovered that a problem is coming from human waste. That is why certain tanks are checked, rather than testing thousands of tanks that have not indicated a problem. Is a similar approach taken to industrial waste and farming waste?

Dr. Jenny Deakin

We have just shy of 5,000 water bodies in the country. All our assessments are based on the monitoring data and our models and tools. We look at more than 100 different datasets at water-body scale. We have a story, so to speak, for each of those water bodies about whether the water quality is satisfactory. If it is not satisfactory, we look at why not and at what the problems in the water are. Then we go back into the mini-catchment area and figure out what the predominant sources of the particular problem we see in that water are. That is done on an individual water-body scale. The next step is for the local authorities water programme to take our national dataset and do local-based science to get a more refined understanding of whether the issues are associated with a particular forestry coop, farm or septic tank. As a State, we have an enormous body of evidence to use to target the appropriate measure for the particular issue at hand. That body of knowledge and information is being built into the national inspection plan for septic tanks and the forthcoming national inspection plan for agricultural inspections. Those inspection plans are, as the Deputy said, risk-based and target the particular issues that have been found in particular areas.

Deputy Martin Kenny

We need to see enhanced biodiversity but we cannot have that without reduced intensity in farm practices. Is that statement generally true? On farm practices, in many areas such as the west of Ireland, in agri-forestry no field is bigger than 2 acres and has a large hedgerow around it. Farmers are frustrated that they do not get the recognition for what they naturally do. Nobody is asking them to farm in that way; that is the way they farm. They get no recognition for that. Yet in other areas there is much more intensive farming. There is an unfair balance in that respect. Can more be done to enhance the work that farmers already do in that type of farm environment?

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Certainly there are exemplary practices and good practices that we need to talk about. We need to share the learnings from them and highlight where farming practices are working with the environment. When we look at the sector overall, which is what we do in the EPA, we can see that the agricultural sector has expanded and grown at the expense of the environment. That is an overall picture, looking at greenhouse gas emissions, water quality and ammonia emissions. As the Deputy highlighted, there are good examples around the country where farmers work with the environment. We have to make sure farmers are rewarded for that. Results-based payments, performance-based payments and so on would incentivise farmers to do the right thing. We are supportive of that.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Deputy Kenny. I must advise members that we have a hard deadline of 1.45 p.m. Officials from two Departments are still to come in. We will wrap up this session soon. I will make my contribution before Deputy Whitmore comes in.

If anybody else wants to come in briefly in this session, they may indicate now and I will bring them in.

I will pick up on Deputy Whitmore's comment earlier about this Government and previous governments not having the measures in place, leading to the idea that we are now in a worse situation than we might have been had we the measures in place, though I would argue that there are measures in place. The nitrates action plan has been in place - we are on to the sixth one now - but the problem is not so much that the measures are not in place but, rather, that they are not being adhered to or implemented, and maybe the enforcement is not what it should be. Could you perhaps comment on that, Dr. Cotter? I seem to recall you saying in a previous session, maybe in this committee or maybe in the agriculture committee, that the plan is good - I am talking about nitrates now - but that we have had to revise it and introduce more stringent measures with each iteration of the plan because we have not fulfilled the plan of the day. We are on to sixth one now. Is it true to say that if we implement the sixth nitrates action plan, we will get back on the right road? That is my first question.

My second question is a broader one for both the EPA and Professor Scott and relates to the idea of developing an environment policy position that would look at all the different policy documents that are there, many of them in contradiction with one another. I think Professor Scott talked about 100-odd different documents. It seems so unwieldy. I refer to the idea of having this coherent environmental policy. It is quite amazing that we do not have it, actually, but in some way it is understandable because it is clearly very complicated. Are we moving towards that? Is that what is happening? I do not know if it is for you, Dr. Cotter, or Professor Scott to say, but I am interested in the direction of travel, that is, where we are trying to get to or where we should be trying to get to.

Dr. Eimear Cotter

We are in the fifth nitrates action programme, and what we have seen is that, up to now, clearly, over the past five programmes, it has not worked to improve water quality. We still see nitrate levels that are too high, with an increase between 2021 and 2022. What we have said about the nitrates action programme is very much the point we have discussed here this morning. It is about implementing existing environmental legislation and following through in terms of farm inspections. This all falls under the nitrates action programme. Good agricultural practice regulations which are implemented and enforced by local authorities are all connected. If farm inspections were to be increased, if those follow-through actions were undertaken and prosecutions taken where necessary, we would move a long way towards implementing the nitrates action programme as set out in the fifth iteration of it.

The Department, the Government and the Minister have committed to putting in place a national environmental policy position. It is being led by the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications and we are very much supportive of that and encourage the committee to get into it. It brings together many of the recommendations from the citizens' assembly in terms of that coherence and the overarching strategic direction that needs to be taken. Perhaps what has suffered in terms of biodiversity up to now is that it is so fragmented across many different organisations. This is one way of pulling that together and focusing on outcomes.

An Cathaoirleach

Professor Scott, do you wish to comment?

Professor Mark Scott

We are certainly looking at the land use review, how we overcome issues of silent policymaking or fragmentation or just the breadth of policies that have a land use impact.

Regarding a broader national environmental policy, that is beyond the work we do, so this is me expressing a personal viewpoint. I think it would be helpful. Dr. Cotter suggested some of the interactions or impacts some policies could have on one another. An integrated approach can also generate co-benefits. Biodiversity is a good case. What we do with biodiversity could also interact with our climate actions. We know that good quality green spaces in cities have a positive impact on health and well-being and we know that nature-based approaches that also help biodiversity can counteract or mitigate some flooding impacts as well. We could have something that tries to capture how different sectors interact with one another but also maximises what we are doing by capturing the co-benefits across a whole range of environmental policies.

An Cathaoirleach

Does Deputy Whitmore want to come in?

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

This is a question for the EPA. I note that compliance and enforcement is a key part of what it is saying we need to improve. If you look up Uisce Éireann and the fines that have been applied, we are talking about €900, €2,000 or €7,000. For a €1.5 billion organisation that seems absolutely paltry. That is not going to encourage it at all. That fine will provide no discouragement. With the EPA's prosecutions, if there are 15 to 20 cases per year, how many of those would be related to Uisce Éireann? Have there been instances where Uisce Éireann has been prosecuted in relation to the same river system or event a number of times? With fines for State entities, it is essentially the public purse that is paying for them not doing their job and it is costing the EPA resources, staff and the finances to go to court. Is that a good use of public money to sanction in that manner or are there other sanctions that should be applied to State agencies when they fail to uphold the law of the State?

Dr. Eimear Cotter

The 14 or 15 prosecutions we take every year relate to industrial areas. That is separate from Uisce Éireann in terms of the industrial emissions directive mainly. That is our regulatory function. We license and enforce large industries such as pharmaceutical plants for example. That is separate and that is on average 14 or 15 prosecutions every year. I separate them because they are different regulatory regimes. For our regulation of Uisce Éireann, we have prosecuted it 28 times in total. As to whether there are repeat prosecutions, I do not know.

Ms Mary Gurrie

There is a legacy of underinvestment in our sewage treatment. It is not where it should be and there is a lot of work and investment required to get it up to the scale required. The EPA has a priority action list and that is where we focus our enforcement activities, which is our priorities around raw sewage, compliance in wastewater treatment plants, freshwater pearl mussels and sites that are impacting on water quality. Those are the priority focuses, although there are other problems. That is where we address our enforcement actions, if Uisce Éireann has not responded in the timeline it has committed to or if there are delays or particular breaches. We can check whether there have been repeat prosecutions but my understanding is that in general the prosecutions are successful in focusing attention on that issue or the site that needs the upgrade and that there have been improvements on foot of prosecutions being taken by the EPA.

Dr. Eimear Cotter

We can certainly get that information. We are the regulator. We implement the legislation as it is available to us. As for whether that is the right system or not, maybe this afternoon the committee can get into that with Department officials.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the witnesses for that. We are a bit over time so the next session will be less than an hour now. That may be lucky for the officials. I thank the witnesses for coming in this morning and sharing their expertise with us. It is very much appreciated and very helpful to us in our consideration of the citizens' assembly report. I also thank Professor Scott for joining us online.

I am going to suspend for a few minutes to allow the witnesses to leave and the new witnesses to come in.

Sitting suspended at 12.40 p.m. and resumed at 12.43 p.m.

An Cathaoirleach

I welcome the following officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine: Mr. Bill Callanan, chief inspector; Mr. John Muldowney, principal officer; Dr. Michelle Kearney, principal officer; Dr. Pamela Boyle, agricultural inspector; and Mr. Seamus Dunne, senior inspector. From the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, I welcome Mr. Fintan Towey, assistant secretary in the water division; Mr. Colin Byrne, senior water adviser; Dr. Marie Archbold, water adviser; and Ms Deirdre Dunworth, assistant principal.

I remind witnesses of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, I will direct them to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.

I invite Mr. Callanan to deliver his opening statement.

Mr. Bill Callanan

I thank the committee for the opportunity to contribute to its discussions on the recommendations on land use and water quality from the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss. Agriculture and forestry are Ireland's dominant land use, responsible for shaping approximately two thirds of its total land area. As an island nation, Ireland also has a relatively large marine area. The way in which we manage our land and seas has a significant impact on how we support biodiversity and address its significant loss in recent decades. Our Department, alongside our farmers, fishers and foresters, is committed to addressing these losses, and we welcome the work of the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss as an additional resource to support expansion of our tool box of actions.

Of 33 actions specifically identified in the recommendations as the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, 11 are considered implemented and a further 17 are considered as in progress. Those not being implemented are considered to fall under the remit of other Departments or agencies or are being delivered in a different approach. The Department is delivering the recommendations through a range of programmes. Recommendation 79, for example, calls for increased access to agri-environmental schemes and payment on results schemes to be available to all farmers, with commensurate funding. Within the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, strategic plan, the Department is supporting farmers in this ambition through the introduction of eco schemes, of which more than 90% of farmers are voluntarily availing, and through continuation of support for the European Innovation Partnerships, ElPs. These are driving innovation at local level, including the flagship €30 million breeding waders EIP, which will be co-supported with our colleagues in the National Parks and Wildlife Service, and the national agri-environmental scheme, ACRES, with a results-based approach to delivery. Such was the interest in the first tranche of the ACRES programme, with more than 46,000 applicants accepted, that the stream checker for the second tranche is now open, allowing 50,000 farmers to participate in this flagship environmental programme under Ireland's 2023 to 2027 CAP plan, with an unprecedented €1.5 billion funding. Our Department is committed to increasing organic farmed land area from 110,000 ha to 330,000 ha by 2027. This tripling of the organic area will be achieved through the organic farming scheme, enhanced advisory support and increased promotion, as well as developing market demand. A total budget of €256 million has been allocated to the scheme over the lifetime of the CAP strategic plan.

Outside of CAP, our Department is working closely with colleagues in other Departments, including the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications to deliver the objectives of national strategies and plans beneficial for biodiversity. Such initiatives include the national biodiversity action plan, the fourth iteration of which is due for publication shortly, and a number of EU LIFE-funded projects including the Wild Atlantic Nature and Waters of Life integrated projects, both of which have elements of results based agri-environmental approaches within their project design.

Water quality and biodiversity are also a significant focus for our Department. The Department has provided financial support to the agricultural sustainability support and advisory programme, ASSAP, since 2019. ASSAP advisers work across Ireland collaborating with catchment scientists from local authorities water programmes to provide farmers with confidential advice focused on preventing nutrient losses to water. In recognition of this priority, the Department, in collaboration with the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, has committed €60 million in funding to support a new water EIP project. This new EIP will follow the typical EIP approach of ground-up development, locally led with significant stakeholder collaboration to promote the adoption of innovative best practice in nutrient management and address a critical gap in measures to protect and restore water quality. This EIP will build on the positive work of ASSAP and is expected to target 15,000 farmers in priority areas nationally.

I turn to recommendations for the marine environment. Ireland's goals for sustainable fisheries are supported through the EU's Common Fisheries Policy.

This policy provides a framework for the long-term conservation and sustainability of fishing economically, socially and environmentally in waters around Ireland and throughout EU waters. Following this framework and the principles of sustainability, it is possible for marine protected areas and fisheries to coexist, ensuring protection for biodiversity and allowing sea fisheries to continue to support coastal communities and food security.

The vision for the forestry sector to 2030 has been refined in recent years. In 2022, Shared National Vision for Trees, Woods and Forests in Ireland until 2050 was published. This vision informed the forestry strategy, which extends to 2030. The recently improved Forestry Programme 2023-2027 aims to ensure "the right trees in the right places for the right reasons with the right management supporting a sustainable and thriving economy, society and healthy environment". This is a €1.3 billion programme that has a greater focus on delivering environmental, social and recreational benefits for people from new and existing forests.

These policies and legislative instruments are further supported by ongoing training and knowledge transfer for those responsible for action delivery on the ground. The Department is committed to continuous educational development for farmers, fishers, foresters and their advisers through formal approaches, such as the green cert, and informal approaches, such as peer-to-peer learning within EIPs.

In conclusion, these are some examples of what the Department is actioning in line with citizens’ assembly recommendations. The Department acknowledges that the cumulative negative impact on biodiversity and climate within our sector has contributed to a lack of action, or to misinformed action, alongside other sectors over past decades. However, we are working to the future, making more informed decisions as the evidence base expands, with continuous monitoring and review and through greater collaboration across government. From this, we are striving, with all our stakeholders, to improve the sustainability and performance of the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors in line with all three pillars of sustainability.

I thank the committee for the invitation to discuss the recommendations and I am happy to answer any questions members may have.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Callanan for his opening statement. I will go now to Mr. Towey for his statement.

Mr. Fintan Towey

I thank the committee for inviting my colleagues and me to attend to discuss the recommendations contained in the report of the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss and how they relate to water quality. We have examined the report and I welcome the 14 specific recommendations relating to freshwater. They align well with the planned actions contained in the draft national river basin management plan. Indeed, we were mindful of them when finalising the development of the plan. The plan was sent to the water policy advisory committee last week for review. We expect that committee to meet before the end of November to discuss it. The plan will then be presented to the Government for approval and subsequently published. The plan will operate up to and including 2027.

The water action plan is Ireland's third river basin management plan and it outlines the measures the Government and other sectors are taking to improve water quality in Ireland's groundwater, rivers, lakes, estuarine and coastal waters. It provides for the future sustainable management of our water resources as specified under UN sustainable development goal No. 6 and as mandated by the water framework directive.

The concept of good water quality has significantly changed since the directive was introduced in 2000. The term "water status" is now used and this relates to the overall condition of aquatic ecosystems. Surface water bodies are classified by their ecological status, which includes biology, chemical water quality and hydromorphology-physical condition, combined. Monitoring for hazardous chemicals is also carried out. All of this information is combined to provide an overall status of surface water bodies. Groundwater bodies are similarly classified but assessments relate to chemical status and quantitative status, that is, the amount of water present. The element with the lowest status for any given water body determines the overall classification and is referred to as the "one out, all out" principle. Members can appreciate that assessing natural water bodies is a comprehensive process.

The water action plan enhances and builds upon the work of the first and second cycle plans. The plan addresses the shortcomings experienced during the implementation of previous plans and it strengthens the incorporation of the integrated catchment management approach, including land use. The EPA reports that water quality in Ireland has made some improvements but these have been offset by declines in water quality elsewhere. Just over half of surface waters are in satisfactory condition.

As pointed out by the citizens' assembly report, water quality and aquatic biodiversity go hand in hand. Healthy aquatic ecosystems rely on good supporting water and habitat quality. Meeting the challenge of protecting and improving Ireland’s water quality is a complex undertaking. There is a significant challenge in cross-sectoral co-ordination. Close co-ordination is needed to identify and exploit any potential opportunity and co-benefits for mitigating and adapting to climate change as well as for biodiversity protection.

Improved technical evidence now provides us with a robust basis for targeting measures at local level. The mission statement of the water plan is to take action to protect and improve all of Ireland’s water bodies by implementing the right measure in the right place at the right time.

Turning to the specific recommendations in the citizens' assembly report on freshwaters, I believe that many of the issues are provided for in the plan and we are happy to delve into these in more depth during the discussions. In keeping with the ambition of this plan, the Government’s objective will be to achieve as close to 100% compliance by 2027 as possible. Reviewing progress will enable mitigation programmes to be assessed, modified and expanded to maximise the ambition for cycle 3.

While there are a range of environmental pressures impacting natural waters, the main environmental pressures continue to be agriculture, physical impacts from human activities such as drainage and barriers on rivers, as well as forestry and urban waste water discharges. Considerable efforts have been made in collaboration with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to strengthen the regulation of the agricultural sector through the nitrates action programme, including increased enforcement efforts. New schemes have been designed under the new CAP strategic plan to deliver co-benefits for water, biodiversity and climate going beyond compliance with regulations.

The Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage will lead in the development of a new national hydromorphology programme involving an overhaul of regulatory regimes and the establishment of river barriers mitigation programme operated by Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI. The forest service has committed to assess the 216 water bodies at risk from forestry, and to identify those forestry activities most likely to be the cause of impact and the measures to address them.

Local authorities, with the support of the local authority waters programme, LAWPRO, are developing an implementation strategy for nature-based sustainable urban drainage systems on a national scale. Uisce Éireann will continue investment in wastewater infrastructure and will review all of 197 water bodies where urban waste water discharges have been identified as a significant pressure by 2025.

Finally, LAWPRO has commenced the development of 46 local catchment management subplans. These subplans will provide details of the locations of measures at catchment level and will serve as a basis for tracking and managing progress in implementation during this cycle and beyond.

I would like to reiterate that the water action plan is being reviewed by the water policy advisory committee at the moment. It will then be presented to the Government for approval and it will be subsequently published. I thank members for their attention and we will be happy to take any questions and to discuss the citizens' assembly recommendations.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Towey for his opening statement. I remind members that we need to be out of the room by 1.45 p.m. Five minutes per member is fair. We will try to give our guests enough time to answer. As we are running out of time, I will push it along.

Senator Timmy Dooley

I welcome the presentations from both sides. I have been on this committee for some time. I have seen Departments slowly come from a position of doing what they were doing to now recognising the importance of climate change. It is clear from the presentations today that there is a much greater level of engagement and work being done, which has to be welcomed.

The EPA has come before the committee and the witnesses have reflected on the issues it identified as posing the greatest threat to water quality. We spoke about agriculture, forestry, local authorities and urban discharges. On the forestry side, how close is the Department to having a land map of the right crop in the right place in order to meet the expectations of farmers? For a long time, we put an emphasis on the agricultural community. We told people that if they had a bit of land that was not great, they should plant it and would get some environmental and financial benefit from that.

Obviously, that is going to change because of the impact on water quality. Will Mr. Callanan tell us where his thinking is on that?

To Mr. Towey, the wastewater side is a big issue in the county I come from where responsibility is left with Uisce Éireann. Uisce Éireann has an enormous challenge in terms of the work it has to do to a very tight timeline. Does Mr. Towey think it is equipped well enough, both financially and in terms of capability and capacity, to meet the needs? I look at somewhere like Lahinch, which has reached capacity. It is restricting the development of housing that is needed for the local community, particularly with the significant demand that is now there because of migration that is taking place into the north Clare area. I look at places like Doolin, which does not have appropriate wastewater treatment at all. I look at Cooraclare and Broadford, which it is to be hoped are advancing. These are villages and small towns that do not have any water infrastructure, that do not have any Uisce Éireann infrastructure, and Uisce Éireann is saying it has so much to do on the other hand that it will not touch those. I take at face value Mr. Towey's statement that the intention is to intervene in every location where there are potential pollutants. We have villages in Clare, and I suspect it is the same in every county, where raw sewage is effectively being pumped into the little drains at the backs of the houses. It is having a detrimental impact on the ecology there in the first instance. It might not be at a scale where it is causing a massive pollution catastrophe, but it is a big problem for a local area and for aquatic life. I would like to hear the witnesses' thinking on all that.

Mr. Bill Callanan

To start off, I very much endorse the Senator's comment about the interdepartmental workings. The opening statement should allude to that. To give some typical examples, there are the likes of the new European Innovation Partnership, EIP, for water, which is substantially funded by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The breeding waders programme is the reverse in that is substantially supported by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, with significant funding from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. There are other instances, for example, in terms of prioritisation of entry into agri-environment schemes, where the likes of EPA mapping on water quality, etc., is used to ensure we are using the right action in the right place.

Specifically in terms of forestry, it is indeed the case that we have to be more careful and conscientious in terms of our forestry plans to avoid impacts on water quality. Also, traditionally, a lot of forestry went in on peat soils, which is not positive from a climate change perspective. In terms of the development-----

Senator Timmy Dooley

Can I just hold Mr. Callanan on that? What is his thinking on that, where forestry was planted on peat soils? The requirement now is that if you fell that timber, under the grant system you must replant again with no grant. Does Mr. Callanan have any broader thinking about moving the farmers or landholders in that area towards a more sustainable forest and providing financial supports for that rather than just saying they got their grants and now have to plant back?

Mr. Bill Callanan

I will go to Mr. Dunne, who is the senior inspector in charge of forestry, so he is more competent in terms of the specific detail of the programme.

Mr. Seamus Dunne

I thank Mr. Callanan and the Senator. It is something we are very conscious of. We are moving away from planting on peat. That is well documented. However, we have a lot of legacy forests that are on peat. We have come through quite an exercise over the past two years under Project Woodland, where we developed a vision. We had a deliberative dialogue which was like a citizens' assembly. It led to 87 different actions. Some of those are programme related that we can fund through the €1.3 billion programme and some are non-programme actions. For example, in relation to legacy sites on peat, some will be replanted and then there will be opportunities to restructure others. Some will not be replanted at all, and some will have wider setbacks or a return to nature. Action 43 is to implement a redesign of habitat restoration measures for forests on peatlands based on the best available science. That is an action that is part of our implementation plan.

Senator Timmy Dooley

That is very sensible. I thank Mr. Dunne.

Mr. Fintan Towey

I thank the Senator for those comments in relation to wastewater and the work Uisce Éireann is doing.

I will say that Uisce Éireann is very well resourced to deal with the various challenges presenting. Under the period of the national development plan, for example, it has provision for €6 billion investment in water services, with €4.5 billion provided by the Exchequer.

Senator Timmy Dooley

What is the delay in the timeline then? I am hearing from big contractors who say they have capacity and they could do it if the work was there.

Mr. Fintan Towey

A lot of the issues presenting are not those where overnight solutions are possible. Where the issue is to significantly upgrade a treatment plant or build a new one, that is a seven or eight year project in practice. If you look, for example, at the most egregious-----

Senator Timmy Dooley

We are going to have to look at that. That used to be the case. I have been 20 years in public life. We used to have a system for schools that had so many stages, it took seven or eight years to build a school. We can now turn them around a lot quicker. We have taken out some of the bureaucratic stages that were really only there because we did not have the money, and you just kept a project moving. If we are doing the same thing on the water treatment side, we need to look at that again.

An Cathaoirleach

That is a fair question, but I want to move it on as quickly as I can.

Senator Timmy Dooley

I apologise.

An Cathaoirleach

If there is time for the Senator to come back in, that is well and good.

Mr. Fintan Towey

I will take wastewater or discharges of raw sewage. When Uisce Éireann was established in 2014, there were 50 instances. There are still 26 instances. That is not acceptable, but 20 of those will be resolved by the end of 2025, and the remaining six by the end of 2028. The Senator also mentioned growth. There is problem solving on the one hand, and on the other hand they are investing to facilitate growth. Uisce Éireann has an extensive programme in that regard.

Senator Timmy Dooley

What about the smaller schemes outside Uisce Éireann?

Mr. Fintan Towey

For smaller towns and villages, Uisce Éireann has a specific programme, for which there is provision of €100 million over the timeframe of the national development plan. It has engaged with local authorities to establish priorities in that respect. Separately, for even smaller settlements, last year the Minister announced a scheme inviting local authorities to bring forward proposals for very small settlements. Those applications are being evaluated at present. The Minister hopes to make an announcement shortly.

Deputy Paul Murphy

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. I will focus on the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The opening statement is disappointing to be honest. We have a horrendous biodiversity crisis. We have a report from the citizens' assembly speaking about the comprehensive failure of the State to address it. We know that agriculture, in particular big agribusiness, is the driving factor behind this crisis. What we heard from Mr. Callanan, and this is not personal, is that of the 33 actions identified as the Department's responsibility, 11 are considered implemented, a further 17 are in progress, and those not being implemented are considered to fall under the remit of other Departments. The Department is, therefore, delivering the recommendations of the assembly through a range of programmes. In other words, it is saying it is grand; it is fine. The Department is saying it is on top of this, when clearly it is not. The crisis clearly continues to get worse. I am asking for a written response, as we will not have time in this committee. I would like Mr. Callanan to go through each of the recommendations he considers related to his Department and show us what is happening on each of them, rather than telling us with a hand wave not to worry, and it is on top of this.

I will home in on some in particular. What is the Department doing about the recommendations to increase sanctions for polluters of water, some of whom would be large dairy farmers?

An Cathaoirleach

I inform Deputy Murphy that we sought and received written responses from all Departments, so we have some of that information already.

Mr. Bill Callanan

I welcome the Chair's confirmation. I would not like anybody to go away with the impression that we are not taking this particularly seriously in terms of the contribution of agriculture to a positive impact on biodiversity. In the round, I recognise that we are working with farmers and stakeholders and ensuring we bring them with us on this journey in terms of education. I am at this a long time too. The best example to illustrate that is the rural environment protection scheme, REPS. I was a REPS man in my day. It was a broad, general scheme in terms of its actions.

Further iterations then became more targeted in terms of the right action. The further development of that was the right action in the right place, using the likes of NPWS mapping on Natura and EPA water quality mapping as the focus point in terms of developing GLAS. People in a priority area for water quality were required, as farmers, to take those actions that were appropriate to water quality.

We have now pivoted even further in terms of a results-based approach where a significant amount, almost 25%, of the land area in this country is now subject to annual assessment. There is a second-year assessment in terms of marking and scoring for biodiversity value. We have also developed training for 850 advisers in terms of their knowledge of biodiversity. The overall objectives of the scheme are no longer based around compliance but rather education on what we are trying to do with the rules so that people understand them and, therefore, are committing to them.

In terms of sanction on pollution, to be clear, as a Department we are responsible for implementing the basic payment system. Within that, there are requirements in terms of compliance by farmers in respect of statutory measures and good agricultural and environmental conditionality. There is additionality in terms of support through eco and agri-environmental schemes. On compliance, our responsibility is limited to the application of penalties in respect of non-compliance. Overall, the nitrates regulation falls to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and local authorities through regulatory enforcement element of that, which is also available to the EPA and not this Department.

Deputy Paul Murphy

I will move on. Recommendation 83 states that people must be encouraged to consume a more plant-based diet. What is the Department doing about that?

Mr. Bill Callanan

We have identified that as one of the actions for other Departments. The lead is the Department of Health, not the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

Deputy Paul Murphy

Recommendation 75 states the Government must ensure Ireland's food production is in line with the Paris Agreement. What is the Department doing about that, in particular in the context of the recent trip to South Korea to promote beef exports which clearly points in the opposite direction?

Mr. Bill Callanan

The Deputy will be very familiar with Food Vision, which sets out a vision built by stakeholders, in the main, regarding the evolution of agriculture and the requirement for the pillars of an innovative and competitive food sector based on sustainability around those three pillars, namely, environmentally, socially and economically viable food production. The value and importance of food production in Ireland is significant in terms of about 8% to 10% of GDP. A similar quantity of people are working in the sector. As the Deputy can understand, it is significant in terms of the value to the rural economy in particular.

I would describe it to farmers as an evolution and, in many ways, a revolution in terms of food production. In the first instance, for many people in the world food availability is the only criteria they are assessing against. We know significant numbers of people do not have the comfort of knowing they have food. When we have achieved that, food safety is the next standard people are looking at. We have a very good reputation in that regard. The next standard is sustainability. That is what we are focusing on in agriculture. We have to recognise there are a lot of merits in Ireland in terms of grass-based and rain-fed production in this climate, which is environmentally positive compared with a lot of other countries.

Deputy Paul Murphy

Mr. Callanan thinks exporting more beef is in line with the Paris Agreement.

Mr. Bill Callanan

I am not sure where the comment on more beef is coming from. The national herd has been stable since 2017. In fact, it reduced in size last year. This is about creating additional value in terms of our product. We are maximising the value of that in what is a global food system, rather than having a continuous increase in output. That is not happening.

Deputy Paul Murphy

We are looking for a new market in South Korea. Surely that means extra meat.

An Cathaoirleach

I think he has been quite clear. We are up against the clock.

Deputy Richard Bruton

I can understand the frustration of Deputy Murphy. We have been presented with an urgent need for transformational change which the citizens' assembly has said needs to happen. We see plans being refreshed and renewed. It does not sound like the urgent shift that needs to happen will happen.

Could Mr. Callanan indicate what a prosperous farm will look like in ten years' time? How much revenue will come from environmental services, managing the biodiversity loss we are confronted with in this report? That seems to be the key. With regard to their short-term interests, farmers feel they are being attacked on all sides by demands, They do not see a path forward. The Department is primarily responsible for showing that a path exists and that there will be genuine income and prosperous farming at the end of the environmental transformation.

I worry that too much of current agricultural policy is presented very narrowly to manage the immediate challenges and does not have a longer term perspective on the basis of which we could bring people with us. That is the fundamental question. The assembly tells us that enforcement is failing, we have no clear targets, we have not recognised the different land-use objectives, there are institutional failings, there is no soil science centre, we need a new water body and we need the Oireachtas to change its approach. This is really big stuff. The assembly is talking about giving nature a constitutional right which could dramatically change the operational environment in which people work. I do not get the vibe that there is a transformational programme coming into place here. I do see ad hoc improvements to schemes, which I welcome.

We are on the third water plan. The first two have failed if we are continuing to see a deterioration. Do we really have in the new plan a radical shift that will mean co-ordination of the various elements and enforcement, which have failed in the past? In the presentation made to me, ten new things did not jump out at me that will be completely different from those in the two failed plans and dramatically shift the environment within which we are working. It is that level of urgency that the assembly is presenting us with. Working on all the recommendations does not seem to be enough; we need to illustrate the big shifts happening in the two sectors.

Mr. Bill Callanan

I understand the question on the ambition for ten years' time. What we are trying to do is invest in creating the framework for an opportunity for finance, be it in respect of nature capital or carbon farming. The Department has just run a public consultation on carbon farming and has received over 400 submissions. It is a matter of how we create a framework of additionality in terms of opportunities for farmers. As a regulator, I see my role as determining whether the framework is robust and verifiable and whether there is confidence regarding opportunities – for example, in terms of companies investing.

On carbon farming, let me give an example. We have a soil sampling scheme that is run to get a better handle on the amount of carbon currently in our soils. We have the highest density of soil carbon monitoring equipment in Europe under the National Agricultural Soil Carbon Observatory, NASCO, which is being run on our behalf by Teagasc but paid for by the Department. We will have 30 individual sites assessed for carbon movement up and down. Also, we are engaging in public consultation on how to create a carbon framework. There is an emissions trading system, ETS, which creates an internal value in terms of carbon, which we know from a market compliance point of view is nearly at €100 per tonne at this stage. I urge caution regarding these venues in that the reality is that European policy will not allow carbon in agriculture to compete by way of an ETS-type structure. Therefore, we are looking at voluntary carbon markets, for which we believe there is a very strong appetite, but we just have to recognise that there will be a different price point. While we are very clear on the opportunities for ecosystem services and nature capital accounting, into which we have invested in research and regarding which there are several projects and an opportunity for carbon farming, I want to manage expectations.

We need to consider the value of carbon reduction emissions which would be associated with better peatland management and whether there is the same appetite for payment compared to the carbon removal that people might get from forestry. Those are the issues we deal with as a regulator. I do not see us running a carbon scheme per se, but we have to have a regulatory process available so that we can put in place those that are providing those services and there is confidence in the market.

For example, 25% of the basic payment is now paid for eco-schemes in recognition of what farmers currently have or propose to have on their farms in respect of space for nature. That is a direction of travel that is going to continue in terms of the development of CAP. I have spoken about our change to a results-based system, which is monumental in terms of having 46,000 farmers in the scheme and 1 million ha to be scored this year. I challenge the remarks on urgency. I recognise that we have to be open and clear with farmers in terms of the expectation for greater sustainability and payments for services. As a regulator, we need to have systems in place to support that and an open and honest approach.

Mr. Fintan Towey

I thank the Deputy for the question. This is the third cycle of planning under the water framework directive. Two cycles of planning have been implemented so far. Over that period, we have not seen the improvements in water quality that we would like or are envisaged in the very ambitious targets set out in the directive. We have a challenge in terms of how we make progress towards these targets. It is not correct to say that there has been no progress made under the first two plans. There have been interventions and measures that have worked and shown benefits, but those benefits and improvements have been offset by disimprovements in other parts of the country. Therefore, the overall outcome is not as good as we would like to see.

In the third plan, we are continuing to adopt and deepen a series of actions that we think will bring us on a journey towards the target. Being realistic, achieving the ultimate target within the timeframe of the third plan is challenging. I do not think we will get to the target that the water framework directive envisages. However, we are trying to strike a balance.

Deputy Richard Bruton

I am interested in hearing about the crunch changes that make the third plan dramatically different from the previous two. Is it enforcement? There has been criticism that we have not integrated the different uses and do not have targets that can be believed in. It is quite a radical critique and refers to structures not working. I know the plan has not yet been published, but we need to see some very clear guardrails that show it is very different from what has gone before.

Mr. Bill Callanan

There are a wide series of actions and a large stakeholder community. I will ask my colleague to expand on that.

Mr. Colm Byrne

The Deputy asked about the main items. The first is enforcement. We are increasing enforcement resources within local authorities. If the Deputy wants more details, Ms Archibold can speak to that. That is very much about driving compliance. Under the nitrates directive, local authorities, as mentioned by the EPA, have responsibility for broad implementation and enforcement. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has responsibility for derogation farms, etc. We share that burden.

There has been a huge amount of work done in the context of the CAP strategic plan. We have negotiated with colleagues in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and others to try to build more water protection and improvement measures into that. We have been successful to a degree. It became very obvious to us that there is a certain amount of inflexibility with eco-schemes, acres, etc. in that people have signed up to contracts and whatever comes out of that. We recognise the need for something a bit more flexible. It goes back to the message regarding a targeted approach.

In fact, as Mr. Towey just mentioned, where we have seen a bucking of the trend is where we have taken a very targeted approach. In fact, we have seen only a 3% decline but if we look at priority action areas, we have seen a 16% improvement. We are trying to double down and get a better outcome there. We have enough resources at the moment for about 15,000 farmers to be included in this water EIP. That will be driven by the science that, again, was reflected in discussions with the EPA. The EPA has developed very helpful pollution impact potential, PIP, maps where, at a very local level, we can see where exactly measures need to be put in place. The intention is to engage with farmers on, for example, where measures need to be taken on certain parts of their farms, and those PIP maps will support that.

Another benefit is that is now under control of local authorities. The local authority water programme won the competitive tendering, so they will have control of that. They have interest, if you like, and now they have the resources to do that.

An Cathaoirleach

I have to move along-----

Mr. Colin Byrne

Sorry, just two more things. There is the high level of investment in Irish Water, which Mr. Towey mentioned. Another big area is hydromorphology, which the EPA mentioned. Drainage is a big one. Regarding barriers, we are looking for €100 million to fund the mitigation, which is either the removal or mitigation of barriers. IFI will lead that. The target is 270 barriers, which it will address up to 2027. Those are the big-ticket items.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

I wish to address the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine officials first. The derogation was a topic of discussion this morning with the EPA. I am glad to hear the Department officials are setting expectations with the farmers and setting down what is required and what will be required of them going forward, and providing the supports to do that. Regarding the recent derogation and the reduction in nitrates, there would appear to have been no preparation whatsoever provided to the farming community by the Department. There was no guidance or indication to farmers that this was coming down the road, even though there was a general consensus that everyone knew it was going to happen but, from a policy perspective, it was like putting your head in the sand. The reduction in inseminations did not happen and now farmers are facing difficult decisions next year. Do the Department officials think that the reductions being put on the farming community now will be sufficient for us to meet the conditions of Europe for 2025 or is there a risk that we will be in the exact same position again in a year or year and a half, where Europe is requiring further reductions in nitrates and the Government and Department have not identified that in sufficient time and not put plans and supports in place in time for farmers to be able to deal with it?

My next question is on the septic tank grant and it is for the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage officials. It is welcome and important, but did they look to expand it? Obviously, the ideal situation is that households do not have septic tanks but are on the mains because septic tanks will always have inherent risks associated with them. Have the officials looked at expanding that grant to accessing water mains? It is incredibly expensive to get onto Uisce Éireann’s water system if a person currently has a septic tank and wants to connect to it.

Mr. Bill Callanan

I do not think it would be fair to say that farmers were not aware when we secured it. It is a four-year derogation and we are in year two. When the derogation was secured, we did a number of webinars, including through the signpost programme, as well as advisory contact. The Irish Farmers' Journal did an exposé in, I think, June, which was about two months after it. The conditionality was emblazoned on the front of the paper. There was much focus on the requirement to meet water quality improvements at the time of securing the derogation. I think farmers were clear in their understanding of that.

Regarding preparation for the next time, preparing for that is our clear focus.

I draw attention to a number of initiatives. The Minister brought through the Houses of the Oireachtas the fertiliser database regulations. In terms of working with farmers with a focus on how to reduce the usage of chemical fertilisers there has been a 10% cut in fertiliser allowances under the nitrates regulations already. We are engaged with a water quality group to see whether we can build on this momentum with an additional 5%. The recommendations of the expert group will go to the Minister shortly. We will then bring these to the water group and do a public consultation on the next phase of our nitrates action programme. All of this is with the objective of us being in a good place in 2026 for the renegotiation of the derogation. There is a focus on this. The additional actions we are taking with farmers over the current period, which are substantial, as we look to the next review are all designed with the aim of improving water quality to be in a good place for discussions.

To be clear the derogation is dependent on a number of specific conditions. These include a long growing season, high denitrification and high levels of rainfall to displace nitrates. These conditions are consistent but, naturally, they must be accompanied by a positive trend in water quality to assuage any concerns that we are doing harm through being granted a derogation.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

I know the Department is also working on a voluntary reduction scheme in the dairy sector. It is exploring this and doing a scoping exercise. There would be dual benefit with regard to the impact of nitrates on emissions and on biodiversity. Where is the Department with the scoping exercise for a voluntary scheme for the dairy sector?

Mr. Bill Callanan

The development of a scheme is a political issue for the Minister. Voluntary schemes do not fall into my area so I would be reluctant to say something on where we are at in its development as I would be wondering whether I was correct. One of the recommendations of the dairy group was to investigate opportunities for a livestock reduction scheme. It was not specific with regard to category. The work on looking at these opportunities is ongoing. I cannot comment on where it is at.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

It was reported that the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, said the option of a voluntary dairy reduction scheme was being explored by the Department. Is the Department exploring this?

Mr. Bill Callanan

We are looking at the options on how to scope it out. It is not in my area so I am not competent to give a direct answer on where it is at, which I understand is the question.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

Would Mr. Callanan be able to get this information?

Mr. Bill Callanan

I can certainly get something.

An Cathaoirleach

Does Deputy Whitmore have a question for the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage?

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

Has the Department considered septic tanks and Uisce Éireann?

An Cathaoirleach

I ask Mr. Towey to be succinct.

Mr. Fintan Towey

Deputy Whitmore is familiar with the change to the grant. The grant assistance is available because we need to have a better incentive to tackle instances where septic tanks are not performing. That said, a performing septic tank is an acceptable environmental solution. It is the intention in those instances where an alternative exists to connect to the public system that we should provide assistance to do so but not at a higher level than would apply to remediating a septic tank.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

The grant scheme will apply for people to get onto-----

Mr. Fintan Towey

The intention is that where there is a better solution with a public sewer we should use it.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

Does Mr. Towey know when this will be in place? Will it be introduced with the current-----

Mr. Fintan Towey

The intention is to bring it in from next year.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

I thank Mr. Towey.

Deputy Martin Kenny

I thank the witnesses for their contributions. I want to ask about ACRES, which is the main scheme for the farming community from an environmental perspective. It is open to approximately 50,000 farmers. How many of these are in the dairy sector and other more intensive sectors? It is probably considered that the vast majority of farmers who go into these schemes are already operating at a low intensity and probably have higher biodiversity-type farming practices than many of their colleagues who are on better land and have larger expanses of land, particularly in the dairy industry.

Is there any way we can encourage those who are now farming more intensively to come into these types of schemes and change their practices?

There were a large number of delays with the previous forestry scheme. I know the intention is that the new scheme will be much more efficient with regard to letting people into it. I welcome the change we will see whereby non-farmers will not get as much of a premium, or for as long, as those engaged in farming. I hope it will encourage less buying up of land by investors. This is something that has really annoyed people in my constituency, farmers and people in the farming community. I would like reassurance that the new scheme will be more efficient.

Town sewerage schemes were mentioned in respect of linking into community group schemes in areas outside of a town and getting a project to remove individual septic tanks and bring them into group schemes. There is a long delay and a lot of frustration among people trying to get into the scheme. Uisce Éireann states it is not feasible and it will not go ahead. Earlier I mentioned the community in Hartley, which is outside of Carrick-on-Shannon. The people there have spent thousands on getting plans, maps and drawings done, getting consultants and making an application, with the support of the local authority, to be told at the end of it all they will not get the scheme. It is very frustrating for communities. I understand that many communities throughout the country are in this situation.

The systems already in place in many of our towns are working but they run into difficulties when there is heavy rainfall. In many of the old schemes the groundwater is linked to the sewage system. I know several towns in my constituency where after three days of heavy rain the sewerage system overflows into the river. When it was first done 200 years ago everything in the town was linked into the sewerage pipes. This is causing significant problems. It would be a relatively easy fix to separate these pipes. It would not be an upgrade to the system. There needs to be a focus on this because it causes a serious environmental hazard when it happens.

Mr. Fintan Towey

Capacity in wastewater treatment is acknowledged as an issue. There are instances where the groundwater feeding into the system puts the overall capacity under pressure. How they can be separated where it is appropriate is being looked at. It may not always be the right solution but it is certainly being looked at to ensure the overall effect in terms of the discharge into the environment is not problematic. I will ask my colleague to comment further.

Mr. Colin Byrne

I will pick up on the point on separating run-off from septic water for treatment. There is a national implementation strategy for nature-based solutions. The Department has provided funding to the local authority waters programme, which is a shared service supporting local authorities. Two experts are being put in place who will assist local authorities.

As Deputy Kenny is probably well aware, county development plans mention nature-based solutions as this is in the planning legislation. However, the practice on the ground is a bit patchy. Some of the bigger local authorities have the resources to do it but others are not quite as well prepared. We recognise the need to bring the knowledge together on this. The first meeting of the group is tomorrow. For the past year and a half we have run online workshops and they have been extremely well attended. Sometimes 400 or 500 local authority staff members have attended. There is real interest in it. Uisce Éireann is also looking at pilot schemes. There is a lot of interest in this area. The policy is there but the practice is not and we are trying to bridge the gap.

Mr. Bill Callanan

To be clear, we are agnostic in terms of entry to schemes. The likes of agri-environment are available to all sectors, including dairy. The Deputy is entirely correct that a heat map of participation would show a significant focus on biodiversity within agri-environment and that tends to be those less intensive farmers. However, it is not that it is excluded. I think the committee had a presentation from Macra na Feirme. Its representative is a dairy farmer. I was on that farm in County Waterford as part of Agri Aware's open farm day. That representative is a participant in agri-environment, as I understand it.

The way we support more intensive farmers is through the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, in terms of slurry investment and the likes of solar panels in terms of displacement of their energy requirement. There are also opportunities within eco schemes. Under those schemes, there is space for nature but also the use of GPS equipment to minimise fertiliser use. It is about 10% less. For those who have reduced their fertiliser use, one of the options in the eco scheme is in terms of drawing down that support by more intensive farmers.

Deputy Martin Kenny

Are there no other measures to encourage more intensive farmers to enter the schemes? We know it is voluntary but can nothing else be done? Has the Department considered other measures to try to target more intensive operators? The issue as far as I can see is the more intensive farmers are creating the most difficulties, yet they are the ones not availing of the schemes. Can anything be done in respect of that? I am not talking about getting a big stick out but we need to find some way of doing it.

An Cathaoirleach

We have just five minutes left and Deputy O'Rourke is waiting. Does the Deputy want to ask his question? Mr. Callanan can then answer it with Deputy Kenny's.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

I have two questions and will try to keep them short. The first is for Mr. Callanan. If the European Union agreed in the next 12 months to significant investment in a nature restoration fund to reward farmers for restoring nature, would this State be in a position to administer schemes? Have we schemes ready to go? Are we designing schemes? Have we the accounting mechanisms in place? What would be the barriers to delivery?

To Mr. Towey or Mr. Byrne, nature-based solutions, policy and practice were mentioned. Is there a cross-cutting? We heard earlier from people working in land use strategy. What are the barriers to delivering that? It is something that is pointed towards, but what are the barriers in policy and practice to delivering nature-based solutions? Is it in the witnesses' gift or is it a cross-departmental responsibility?

Mr. Bill Callanan

On Deputy Kenny's point, the multi-species supports scheme would be one that is used by intensive farmers. We have support practices for red clover in terms of the opportunity to reduce chemical fertiliser use by those farmers. That is an example of what is targeted at more intensive farmers.

On Deputy O'Rourke's comment, the Department has to reinvent itself every six or seven years in terms of schemes because we have a new CAP with new priorities which evolve. To quantify that for this year, we have to build a whole computer system and a whole scheme in terms of how it is operationalised. That includes 130,000-odd farmers' access to the basic payment plus the eco scheme this year, which is a completely new scheme. It includes having the IT and accounting systems. Reporting systems are now a big element, and there is monitoring, etc. I have no doubt the Department will step up to the plate in administering additional funds if they become available, particularly directed at the nature restoration fund. I have no reluctance in saying the Department will deliver and has the capacity to do so.

Mr. Colin Byrne

On nature-based solutions, the knowledge and practice is there. The EIP initiative the Department has been administering for years has given us a test bed for many of these solutions. The challenge is upscaling that. I would be very familiar with those challenges in the Department. The technology and knowledge are there. The capacity to deliver is the real problem. Even the number of agricultural advisers available to do this is a challenge.

We are seeing an issue where local authorities and the EPA are struggling to get staff to do this. It is not a funding restriction; it is capacity. It is bodies to do the work and scale it up to an extent that will deliver reasonably quickly.

An Cathaoirleach

We are right up to 1.45 p.m. Apologies to colleagues for pushing them but I appreciate their co-operation. Apologies to our guests. I am sure they could speak at length on these issues and would love the opportunity to do so. Notwithstanding that, we had a very good session in the time we had. It will be helpful for us as we consider the citizens' assembly report. We have to clear the room now so, once again, thank you for coming in today and helping us with our consideration of the report.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.46 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 14 November 2023.