The main item for discussion is implementation of the nitrates directive. The joint committee has invited representatives of two bodies to meet it today, namely, the Irish Farmers' Association and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. We have decided to hear from the representatives of the IFA first. I welcome its delegation which I know has other business that clashes with this meeting. Before Mr. John Dillon begins, I draw the attention of members of the delegation to the fact that while members of the committee enjoy absolute privilege, the same privilege does not extend to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or an official, by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Will Mr. Dillon please introduce the members of the delegation to the committee before he commences his presentation?
Nitrates Directive: Presentations.
Mr. John Dillon
I thank the Chairman for allowing us to meet the committee today. I will introduce the members of the delegation. I am accompanied by the general secretary and chief executive of the IFA, Mr. Michael Berkery; the executive secretary of the industrial committee on the environment, Mr. Jim Devlin; the chairman of the industrial committee on the environment, Mr. Tom Dunne; and our expert adviser on scientific issues relating to nitrates, Dr.Austin Morgan.
I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for facilitating us in making this presentation on the nitrates directive and, in particular, the development under the directive of an action programme for Ireland. The IFA considers the directive to be the most important issue facing the Irish farming sector. I acknowledge fully the time and access given by Deputies and Senators to IFA officers for briefings on farmers' concerns about the nitrates directive at two information meetings in Buswell's Hotel on 17 February and 25 May. I also formally acknowledge that Deputies and Senators have had meetings in their constituencies with IFA county executive officers.
We are here today to call for a new strategy from the Government towards implementation of the nitrates directive in Ireland. The directive is about water quality; in particular, the impact of agricultural activities. It focuses on the level of nitrates in water which arises from agricultural sources. Member states are required to identify waters vulnerable to nitrates from agricultural activities and designate the land areas associated with these waters, or the entire territory of the country. I understand six member states have gone with the whole country approach to designation under the directive.
What is before us is a further requirement in the directive to implement an action programme which will regulate farming within the designated area — in Ireland's case, the whole country. In effect, this will mean a legally enforceable standard for farming.
I repeat the pledge given on a number of occasions by me as president of the Irish Farmers' Association on behalf of its 85,000 committed farmers who are committed to ensuring clean water and a high quality rural environment. We will support measures that are necessary and will protect our rural environment and ensure high quality water. Our 140,000 farmers do not deliberately, or carelessly, allow any discharges of manure or effluent from their farms, nor do we condone the activities of a tiny minority of individuals who may act irresponsibly in protecting the environment. We cannot and will not condone anybody acting irresponsibly. Farmers live and work in the countryside and drink the water. Arguably, they have a greater interest than most in a clean high quality rural environment.
Despite the strong negative impression many have, Ireland scores highly in the Eurovision of water quality. The EPA's latest water quality monitoring report, up to the end of 2002, indicates that 70% of our rivers are unpolluted while 85% of our lakes are in a satisfactory condition. This follows an improvement in water quality in previous reports. More recently, there has been a decline in the amount of river channel classified as seriously polluted from 1% to 0.5%, most of which is caused by sources outside of agriculture such as municipal and industrial discharges, with just three instances attributed to agriculture.
While I am dealing with water quality, I would like to refer to work done by Dr. Austin Morgan, at the IFA's request, which examines the performance of local authorities in wastewater treatment. Dr. Morgan is with us today. His report is an indictment of local authority performance in wastewater treatment. It is clear than many local authorities are simply not up to the game and will not meet the statutory obligations imposed on them through regulations. The report shows that just six out of 36 local authorities had secondary treatment facilities or better. In other words, 30 local authorities are engaged in discharging effluent with only minimal or no treatment. Of 23 local authority plants discharging to sensitive waters with phosphorus monitoring, just eight were in compliance in respect of sample numbers and phosphorus concentration. The majority of local authorities are not sampling effluent frequently enough or in the specified manner. Some do not sample at all or do not submit the samples they have conducted.
Dr. Morgan's report clearly shows that the majority of local authorities cannot give a fair assessment of water quality due to inadequate sampling regimes and their own performance in wastewater treatment. This seriously flawed information is being used to underpin action to regulate farmers under the nitrates directive. It is unacceptable to farmers that local authorities which have chosen to impose by-laws on farming in counties Cork, Cavan, Tipperary and Westmeath are among those which did not return data for all listed treatment plants within their region as required by regulations.
Clean water and a high quality rural environment are very much part of the business of farming. Under food safety and dairy hygiene regulations, the water farmers use in producing milk must meet high quality standards. The extensification of farming and compliance with the Department of Agriculture and Food's code of good farming practice are conditions for receiving farm supports. Some 39,000 farmers have also entered into contractual agreements with the Government to meet even higher standards through their participation in the rural environment protection scheme. This participation is planned to increase to 55,000 farmers in the near future.
Farmers have repeatedly invested heavily in improving farmyards and manure storage facilities. Various estimates calculate the amount of this gross investment at in excess of €1.5 billion over the last 15 years. This investment does not provide a reasonable return on the capital employed by any normal economic assessment.
Throughout the debate on the nitrates directive and the development of an action programme for Ireland, there has been little acknowledgement of the changes that have occurred in farming and the fact that farmers follow the advice they receive, particularly in the use of fertiliser inputs. For instance, far from wastefully using fertilisers, consumption of the key inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus has fallen significantly. Phosphorus use by farmers peaked in the early 1970s at over 90,000 tonnes and has dropped to around 40,000 tonnes today. Nitrogen usage has also fallen. Similar dramatic reductions in fertiliser usage have not taken place in other EU member states, including the North of Ireland. Farmers use fertilisers in the way advised. Repeated Teagasc fertiliser use surveys confirm this. It is worth noting that in recent years official advice has moved towards the use of less fertiliser. Teagasc's advice on phosphorus use was revised downwards in 1997 and its broader nutrient use advice was revised in 2001 and again earlier this year.
Given that our water quality is improving and the changes already taking place in farming, why is the Government opting for very severe restrictions in its nitrates action programme, particularly the proposed restrictions on organic nitrogen? The reality is that its proposals on an action programme for Ireland under the EU's nitrates directive, including a limit on organic nitrogen applications of 170 kg. per hectare, will force our best farmers to reduce their livestock numbers which as a consequence will reduce their incomes. It will also limit their capacity to compete using the key natural advantage that Ireland has — livestock and milk production from grass.
The consequences for our agri-business have been recognised. Jerry Henchy, chief executive of Dairygold, recently stated in the Irish Farmers’ Journal:
The stocking rates imposed by the proposed 170 kg. nitrate limit will force most Dairygold suppliers to cut stocking rates by 15% to 20% with a consequent increase in milk production costs, and a cap on future expansion potential. We believe this would be disastrous for the future of dairying in the region.
Similar concerns are being expressed by other key agri-businesses, including Glanbia. Teagasc has estimated that over 13,000 dairy farmers have stock levels equivalent to more than the 170 kg. limit, which group accounts for most of our total national milk production. These farmers are not big by European or national standards. Typical examples are the suppliers to the west Cork co-ops who are farming 60 acres with 50 cows plus their replacement stock. They exceed the 170 kg. limit. Executives of the west Cork Ballyroe Co-op have estimated an average income cut of €6,000 a year will be imposed by the nitrates action programme on their suppliers.
The intolerable situation for farmers facing a 170 kg. organic nitrogen limit is that this restriction is not supported by scientific research into the impact of farming on water quality under Irish conditions. Many scientists believe a figure of 250 kg. per hectare is safe and acceptable under Ireland's unique growing conditions. It is regrettable that Teagasc has not come out more clearly with its assessment of the Government's proposals and the damage they would cause for agriculture. I am seriously concerned at the implications of the measures included in the draft action programme for farmers' entitlement to the new single farm payment from 2005. The nitrates action programme is listed as one of 18 statutory management requirements which must be met by farmers in order to receive the payment.
The IFA believes the derogation route being pursued by the responsible Departments represents a flawed strategy. There is little experience within the European Union of derogations being sought under the nitrates directive. The only derogation was granted by the Commission in November 2002 to Denmark. It provides for a restrictive 170 to 230 kg. per hectare organic nitrate limit which is only available on individual farm applications, applies to 5% of the land area and 10% of the livestock units. The derogation expires in August 2004. It is predicted that the general restriction of nitrates usage falls 10% below the economic optimum.
The directive allows member states to select organic nitrogen restrictions other than the specific numbers included in the directive provided they are based on objective criteria which will not prejudice the overall objective of the directive: to reduce and prevent nitrates pollution. It is clear that farming will be damaged by the restrictions proposed by the Government. There is no evidence of further improvements in water quality.
The Government must remove the 170 kg. limit from its nitrates action programme before irrevocable damage is done to agriculture with no environmental gain. There must be immediate meaningful engagement on other criteria and measures proposed in the draft action programme to benefit water quality without undermining farmers who remain the backbone of the economy.
I thank members for their attention. My colleagues and I will be happy to reply to any questions that they may have.
I welcome the delegation. The IFA's criticism appears to be levelled at Teagasc, an advisory body. Is Mr. Dillon aware of the contacts and connections between the two Ministers involved and Teagasc on this matter? What advice has been given by Teagasc? I had assumed that it merely advised the Ministers concerned who then made the decisions. I read recently that the IFA had been given an undertaking in Sustaining Progress that nitrogen limits would be set at a figure higher than 170 kg. per hectare. Perhaps the delegation will outline what was promised at the time and what explanation has been given for not following through on this.
For how long did the Government sit on the directive before taking the decision to implement it? What penalties can be imposed on it if it fails to deal with it? I also read recently about the promises made regarding derogations. The Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, promised significant derogations. What is the opinion of the European Commissioner with responsibility for the environment on those promises?
Mr. Dillon
The Deputy referred to my criticism of Teagasc. My criticism relates to the leaked proposed action programme. The IFA is critical of Teagasc's independence. Its credibility must be questioned, given that it was not prepared to state what should be done as regards production methods research to avoid damage to the environment, a point on which we have asked it to come clean but it has failed to do so.
While the proposed action programme is only in draft form, it proposes the introduction of a limit of 170 kg. as a base figure and the seeking of derogations. It does not make sense to say one will accept a 170 kg. base figure and then expect to seek a derogation with a 230 or 250 kg. limit. That argument is flawed and does not stand up to scrutiny. The Departments of Agriculture and Food and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government are not considering the consequences for Irish farming. My colleague, Mr. Michael Berkery, will comment further on this point. I will then deal with the questions relating to Sustaining Progress.
Mr. Michael Berkery
The Deputy raised many questions. Annex III of the directive is quite specific as regards the options available to member states. The relevant section states that during and after the first four year action programme member states may fix different amounts than those referred to but that they must be fixed so as not to prejudice the achievement of the objectives as specified in Article 1 — the clean water objective. It also spells out the basis on which the objective criteria are to be presented.
On the long growing season, we are ahead of Denmark by approximately 30% or 40%. As regards crops with a high nitrogen uptake, 90% of our land area is covered in grass. On high net participation in the vulnerable zones, our rainfall ranges from 60 inches to 75 inches. The annex refers to soils with an exceptionally high denitrification capacity. Some 80% of the land area of Denmark and 100% of the land area of Dublin are sand based. Therefore, they are completely different in that regard.
I will now refer to the commitment to partnership. What was agreed by the Government — at the time we anticipated we would reach this point during the lifetime of the partnership agreement but there was no time to work out the details — was that, in the context of the regime to be adopted to transpose the provisions of the nitrates directive, it would use the flexibility offered by the directive to secure Commission approval for limits of up to 250 kg. in appropriate circumstances. Our understanding of the term "appropriate circumstances" was that it referred to areas where there was no issue with water quality.
What percentage of our land area has water of such poor quality that it would justify a reduction?
Mr. Berkery
I will pass that question to my colleague, Dr. Morgan.
Dr. Austin Morgan
I could not answer that but believe four groundwater bodies — in other words, four aquifers — have been identified as having high nitrate concentrations. Seriously polluted river stretches are of the order of 1%.
Mr. Jim Devlin
Half of 1%.
Dr. Morgan
Yes.
Mr. Berkery
I understand it is difficult for the public to make the connection between the so-called 170 kg. per hectare limit and the blanket limitation on stocking. In reality, there is an obligation on all farmers to keep only 0.8 cows per acre. That is not defensible or logical.
I have in front of me a document described as a work in progress. It is a confidential document between the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Agriculture and Food. It is dated 7 May and came into our possession shortly thereafter. It is a very scary document because there it contains many commitments to consultation with scientific interests and, of course, those who will ultimately bear the brunt of the regulation. From it, it is patently evident that, although there has been consultation — there have certainly been many meetings and exchanges — there is not one scintilla of recognition of all the effort put in, including by our scientific personnel and others.
Clearly, derogation is covered but the commitment is threadbare. I can make copies of the document available to the members if they are interested. The commitment is highly qualified on the basis that it may be rejected, etc. If we sign up to a legally binding commitment of 170 kg. per hectare, thus reducing stocking rates on our best farms to 0.8 cows per acre, problems will arise. The president, Mr. Dillon, has alluded to the studies from Barryroe in Cork, in particular. The Deputy obviously knows the area in question which includes Bandon, Barryroe and Lissavard and stretches as far as Mitchelstown, across County Cork and up to the midlands. We are asking our very best farmers to reduce their stocking rates by 25% to 30% which will have knock-on consequences for their income, without reference to water quality other than a general view that by inflicting pain something good might come of it at the other end. There is no other basis to it. That is the reason the IFA is so concerned about the final position of the Government on the matter. As I said, the document is a work in progress. The draft represents the near-final version of the proposal that will be forwarded to Brussels.
I take it that it is a private document.
Mr. Berkery
It came into our hands but it is an internal document of the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Agriculture and Food.
I am sure it would not be the first private document to come into the IFA's hands.
Mr. Berkery
We can share it with anybody who wishes to see it.
My question arises from Mr. Berkery's response. On Sustaining Progress and the review taking place, has he had an opportunity to establish from the Government side the status of the undertakings given by the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, regarding a derogation? Has he been able to establish the level of interaction between the European Environment Commissioner and the Department? Has he been able to establish the strength of the promises made about a derogation during the discussions?
Mr. Dillon
First, we are not interested in a derogation. Derogations mean rules, regulations and more rules and regulations and the tying down of farmers. Looking for a derogation is one thing, getting it is another. The rules and regulations associated with the Danish regulation are so severe that the situation is totally impossible. They would certainly tie down farmers and put an end to farming as we know it.
It elapses next year.
Mr. Dillon
From that point of view, we are not interested in talking about a derogation, unless there is a baseline first. This should not be 170 kg. per hectare. There should also be a minimum of one cow per acre. This can be achieved according to our interpretation of the directive.
Mr. Berkery
I have the information on the Danish position.
Will it not elapse next year?
Mr. Berkery
It will elapse in August or September this year. On the basis of what has existed, it has been carried out in Denmark as per the actual contractual obligations. It is a George Orwell prescription. Each farmer has to identify each field, the date on which the manure is spread and the amount spread. If the amount is varied in any way, the farmer must report it to the authorities. In terms of environmental pressures and otherwise, we are not even remotely in this scenario. Therefore, when people talk about a derogation, they should note that the Danish one is the only one which has been granted.
On Orwell in Denmark and how he might operate here, the near-final document which we are about to submit to Brussels also states that, in the context of the necessity to reduce livestock manure applications, manure cannot be spread within 200 metres of certain buildings and its spreading or movement shall be prohibited on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays. Therefore, Orwellian prescriptions do not just feature in Denmark.
Mr. Dillon
Two and a half years ago I took over as president of the IFA. The next morning we invited three officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to our meetings. We had certain discussions with them but not one idea we put forward, scientific or otherwise, was taken into account. They were certainly not put down on paper and we were treated as if we had said nothing. It is time to adopt a new strategy, a new approach, with the Government in terms of an action programme.
Does Mr. Dillon consider there has been a breach of Sustaining Progress?
Mr. Dillon
Sustaining Progress is on a knife-edge, given the way we are being treated over the nitrates directive alone.
Mr. Berkery
Admittedly, the document is only at draft stage but undoubtedly it breaches Sustaining Progress.
The substantive point at issue between ourselves and Teagasc is not the advice per se but that the independent research institute has refused point blank to make available to one of its principal stakeholders its scientific advice on this matter, to which we are entitled. Of course, the Government may have private advice — that is a matter between it and Teagasc. Over two years ago we asked the publicly funded, independent scientific research institute to reconcile best agronomic and environmental principles in one index and one recommendation. If this were done, the IFA would have to subscribe to it. We cannot defy the science of production research and environmental research combined. The substantive issue is that the institute has not combined and published the results in one single recommendation or index.
If Teagasc will not give the IFA an answer, perhaps it will give one to this committee. I suggest that we invite its representatives to appear before us to make a statement.
We have agreed to listen to the two bodies today. We will do so and decide at a later stage how we should proceed.
I, too, welcome Mr. Dillon and his colleagues and appreciate the presentation he has made. He outlined to us the idea behind the nitrates directive, namely, the protection of water. He stated: "Member states are required to identify waters vulnerable to nitrates from agricultural activities and designate the land areas associated with these waters, or the entire territory of the country."
Let us consider the EU judgment of 11 March 2004 in which the European Court of Justice held that Ireland had failed to comply with the nitrates directive on four counts, of which the first was that we had not identified completely all waters that could be affected by pollution from nitrates. Has the IFA or the Department identified where pollution is taking place to a large extent from nitrates being spread on land? It is very important that we confirm this first.
I accept fully what has been said about the pollution of our waters by local authorities in the absence of sewage treatment facilities. With respect, that is not the issue today. The nitrates directive is about confining the spreading of fertiliser to certain levels. This is the first issue we should clarify. I have been given strong indications of scientific evidence to prove we have failed to identify where this big problem lies and we must get to the root of this. If we do not do so, it is very difficult for us to make an argument in that respect.
Mr. Dillon referred to slurry storage. From the briefings I have received, farmers would be obliged to invest heavily in additional slurry storage capacity. If we are to believe this draft document, Mr. Dillon might refer to the proposed restrictions to be placed on farmers preventing the spreading of slurry on bank holidays. In my naiveté I originally thought that was a joke. However, it is far from a joke and as it is contained in the document, it needs to be investigated.
I would like some idea of the scientific evidence that exists proving the amount of fertiliser we are currently spreading is not causing pollution to the ground water, as is my understanding. Can we identify the minimal percentage of our lands and waters affected by the provision?
I will allow Deputy McCormack to ask further questions after which Mr. Dillon may respond.
I welcome the delegation. The principal point is that 13,000 intensive dairy farmers will be seriously affected by the limit on organic nitrogen applications of 170 kg per hectare. However, I do not believe this can be measured by simply considering the amount of organic nitrogen and the stocking rate. On better land with a higher stocking rate, perhaps 200 kg might be acceptable. If the needs of the 13,000 out of 450,000 farmers were addressed and a special exemption of 240 kg or 250 kg were allowed for the intensive dairy farmers, the problem would not appear so big.
While all farmers believe they are affected by the directive, in reality some farmers are not affected by the 170 kg. requirement as their stocking rates do not justify the use of fertiliser to that extent. However, a limit on organic nitrogen applications of 170 kg. per hectare would be too low for intensive dairy farmers. Perhaps this should be approached from the point of view of getting an exemption for the 13,000 dairy farmers who, as Mr. Dillon said, farm 60 acres with 50 cows plus their replacement stock, which is a very high stocking rate. Perhaps that would be a better approach and make a better case than seeking a higher rate for the whole country.
Mr. Dillon
I will ask Dr. Morgan to respond to Deputy Cregan's comments about scientific evidence.
Dr. Morgan
I repeat that I am not quite certain about the number of ground water bodies and whether four or six have been identified as containing more than 50 mg of nitrate per litre above the tolerance limit. Even for a ground water body that has more than 50 parts per million, or mg per litre, of nitrate, it would be very difficult to establish the origin of the nitrate. The nitrate can get there from normal breakdown of soil organic matter. It can get there through seepage from land that has been, with respect, adulterated by improperly treated urban waste water or sewage. That can be a source of contamination.
We know also — and everyone has their hands up on this — that there have been certainly some cases of blatant abuse of land spreading of manures. I remember, going back maybe 30 years ago, some research work that was done in Johnstown Castle and published by Teagasc and the figure that comes to mind is that, having applied 250 kg. of them per hectare, the researchers were not able to detect elevated nitrate levels below 1 metre depth. Having said that, I can produce data — we could all produce data — that would give a rather different picture where it is possible to measure very high nitrates where low concentrations of nitrogen are applied. So it is not really black and white. We must simply say that we do not know. However, I am certain it would be erroneous to assume that the only origin of high nitrate in either ground water or river water is farming. That is my concern.
Can I take it that somebody has identified our ground water sources that are polluted with nitrates?
Dr. Morgan
Yes.
Who has done so?
Dr. Morgan
The EPA set up a group and I think it was at one time almost in a position to use that information to declare specific or discrete nitrate vulnerable zones.
From that, can I take it that the EPA is satisfied that our current levels of fertiliser spreading are not too high to pollute our ground water?
Mr. Dillon
I want to make a quick response to that question. In my presentation I made a comment that in the 1970s we were using approximately 90,000 tonnes of phosphorous, which is now down to about half that level. In 1992 there was an increase in livestock production. Livestock production has been static since 1992 and there has been a big reduction in the use of all chemical fertilisers since then. Up to 1998 water quality did not improve. If it was not improving, the problem had to have been caused by somebody else, as we did not have the livestock to produce more.
One animal can only produce the same amount every year — she cannot produce any more or less. We were static in production and had reduced usage yet water quality did not improve. It has improved since then, but some of the local authorities have improved their situation since then. We have to be very clear on where we are. We are not the cause of it.
The position can change from one town to the other. In some towns there is an increase; the river goes downstream and dilutes, and when it gets to the next town it starts to increase again. We must be very clear about where we stand here. We are very much above board. In response to Deputy Allen's comments, we are very conscious of the environment, as we have been since the nitrates directive came into operation. We are not the negotiators in Europe. The Government is our negotiator and it is up to it to negotiate an action programme. They never went about this until recently and when they did so, they rushed through something that had not even been thought out.
I will pass to my other colleague who will respond to Deputy McCormack's questions. Before doing so I want to refer again to Deputy Cregan's comments on the storage cost. It has now been clearly estimated that it will cost farmers €1 billion extra on the basis of the nitrate action programme that has been proposed. Where do members of the committee think this will come from?
Can we have a breakdown of the €1 billion? How was that figure reached?
Mr. Devlin
We commissioned a project by Martin O'Sullivan Consultants in Carrick-on-Suir. He has a very wide client base in the south-east. He also examined the key published data on the three rivers project and the Lough Derg-Lough Rea catchment study. By considering a combination of sources and looking at existing storage deficits on farms and the least-cost option — which would be to provide earthen-bank storage — he arrived at a calculation in excess of €1 billion. While I do not have the details, we have published the calculation and would be delighted to provide it to the committee.
Deputy Cregan made a point about water quality. Analysis of water quality has evolved over the last five years. Initially, the focus was on ground-water drinking sources. Nitrate contamination of ground water in Ireland is generally very low. Where contamination exists, it is at very discrete points. Usually, there is some local knowledge about the issue involved. It was felt that the directive applied to eutrophic, or enriched, water with more types of water being brought into the net, including surface water. We have issues about that and the matter is addressed in part of the report we circulated today.
While agriculture is a key land use and has an impact, there are many other impacts including the impact of municipal waste water treatment. The most damaging report was one published by the EPA in March 2001 which considered estuarine water. It determined that some of the estuaries on the southern and eastern coasts were enriched with nitrogen being implicated. It was deduced that the entire catchment feeding the estuary was a problem. It also happens that the estuaries coincide with population concentrations in the east and south. No catchment was identified in the west, the north west or the far south west. The report moved the debate on to wider areas which were deemed to be nitrate vulnerable as opposed to the very discrete areas which were initially felt to be vulnerable in this way.
Mr. Berkery
In reference to a point made by Deputy Cregan, an issue arises in terms of knowing where we are starting from. We try always within the IFA to speak only about areas in which we have carried out research or acquired knowledge. We cannot answer the question on the directive, but the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government must make the decision. We must establish the benchmark from which to start in this process. The regulation explicitly states that it will be revisited after four years at which time if no improvement has been achieved, tighter and stricter measures may be applied. We must know where the problem is before we commence the operation. The patient is anaesthetised and the scalpels are sharpened but we are not sure where we are making the incision. That is what bothers us. Deputy Cregan can accept that the blame game will not advance matters. We know Cork Harbour has no treatment and that Cork city is discharging into the River Lee without treatment.
Not any more.
Mr. Berkery
Yes. The treatment plant was opened and the ribbon was cut, but it has not been properly commissioned. We must know where we are starting in this process. When we make our case to Brussels, it must be based on objective criteria and peer review by people like Professor Morgan who can say whether the science stands up.
Regulatory science is a slightly different approach. While there is no question that regulation is a problem, in dealing with the issue nationally there are other processes which can be engaged in. I turn again to the work-in-progress document which says the major issue is how to get over the 170 kg. figure. If it applies from January 2005, all farmers with more than 170 kg. or more than 0.8 of a cow per acre, will be out of compliance and denied their single farm payments. Even in the west, many farmers have approximately one livestock unit per acre. Therefore, we find there is a temporary palette to clear and we wish start in 2007 to give us time to progress the matter.
This proposal may be rejected by the Commission. It is an incredibly exposed negotiating position to say we will sign a legally binding agreement where the risk will be borne entirely by the farmer in the hope that something might happen within two years in Brussels. One can see our concern in this matter.
Do you agree that the new single payment will result in a reduction in livestock numbers?
Mr. Berkery
Absolutely.
What is your estimate as to what that reduction will be?
Mr. Berkery
It will depend on market conditions as there will be an entirely market-driven scenario. Thankfully, the beef business is doing quite well at the moment and there is no pressure just now. However, there will certainly be a decline in production. That has already begun to happen as a result of the extensification associated with the rural environmental protection scheme. As we have seen, the use of chemical nitrogen and chemical phosphorous has declined very substantially. That is logical as farmers will not spread them if there will be no return. It is not in dispute that there will be a decline in stock numbers. Dr. John Lee of Johnstown Castle stated in 1998-99 that the directive was flawed as it was a stocking rate directive with only the most tenuous connection to water quality. In the work he undertook in Teagasc, which I read recently, he identified point source pollution, including some farm point source pollution, as the cause of nutrient enrichment in waterways rather than so-called diffuse enrichment from stocking levels.
Mr. Dillon
Deputy McCormack made some points which were echoed in the comments of Deputy Allen about how Sustaining Progress is reflected in our agreement. It is clear in the agreement that there should be a minimum of one cow per acre. The derogation was to be made where there was no water problem as Mr. Berkery has stated and serious costs would not be imposed on an individual farmer. All contributors to pollution of all sorts should sit around a table to solve the problem within the four year period but nothing of that nature features in the new proposals. They are concerned only with stocking rather than the objective of water quality. Professor Morgan will correct me if I am wrong that there is a natural occurrence of certain nitrates in the ground which would exist if there was never an animal there.
I ask what may be a stupid question. How are the rules on the application of nitrogen per acre enforced?
Mr. Dillon
I do not think that will be a significant problem as people whose big job it is to ensure enforcement will do so. They will look for receipts and everything else. There is a mart and they will know how large a parcel of land is and how much nitrogen goes on it. It is enforced in the derogation in Denmark where it is known exactly what goes on each parcel of land. We think it will be enforced very easily. If we give them a thin end of a wedge, it is only needed to drive on from there. That is very serious from our point of view. I ask Tom Dunne to respond to Deputy McCormack.
Mr. Tom Dunne
The nitrates directive in the action programme is very detailed and technical. I am a dairy farmer from north Cork in one of the original nitrate vulnerable zones in a by-law area. Therefore, I am well aware of the implications of this.
On the issue of enforcement, every farmer's stock is on the CMMS computer system and, therefore, what stock one has is known. An area aid application goes in from each farmer each year so the area is known. In the case of county Cork, every bag of chemical fertiliser is registered with Cork County Council, which is likely to be the case with all county councils. Those who sell fertiliser will have to register with the county councils or whichever authority is in charge. This is the enforcement method. The relevant information is inputted to the computer system, which records it. If there is a technical breach of the action programme, a name would pop up and that person would be in trouble.
With regard to the stocking rate restriction of 170 kg., we have had no disagreement with anybody that 170 kg. is an unacceptable stocking rate figure. The problem concerns how we go about changing it to the 250 kg. it should be. Department officials tell us they will leave it at 170 kg. and look for a derogation. However, we know the terms of the Danish derogation and do not believe a derogation would work.
To clarify, I will explain how a derogation would apply to a dairy farmer in practical terms. The nature of dairy farming in Ireland involves cows walking out to grass and eating it. We are unique in this as it does not happen elsewhere in Europe, where farmers might bring feed from 20 miles away to be eaten in sheds. Due to that stocking situation, the stocking rate close to milking parlours in Ireland is much higher than the rate for land which is further away. If one receives a derogation on a field by field basis, it means one would not be allowed to have a high stocking rate close to a milking parlour. Therefore, even a derogation of 250 kg. applied on land around a milking parlour would not be enough. It might be enough in the context of a complete farm but not a field by field basis. For example, it would not be possible for me to operate on my farm as I now do if I was restricted on a field by field basis to 250 kg., although I accept it would be different in the context of the complete farm.
The derogation would be useless in practical terms as those who need it will not be able to use it because of our unique situation. Moreover, all of this assumes that the farmer gets the derogation and can afford all the costs associated with it, which would include costs of up to €2,000 per year for a nutrient management plan. Such plans are complicated, difficult to interpret and, in many cases, their relationship to reality is questionable. They cause many problems.
It is important to point out that the action programme in regard to the 170 kg. stocking rate restriction affects 13,000 dairy farmers who produce approximately 80% to 90% of our milk. However, the other aspects of the action programme affect all farmers. If the action programme was changed to include a figure of 250 kg., every farmer would still be affected by the programme. Whether farmers are in Donegal or Wexford, they have a closed period when they can spread no fertiliser and have minimum storage requirements. All of the other areas, including good farming practice, affect all farmers whereas the stocking rate restriction affects only a certain number.
Despite talk about intensive dairy farmers in the Irish context, Dutch dairy farmers are nine times more intensive than their Irish counterparts. An intensive Irish dairy farmer would be considered a free range farmer elsewhere in Europe because we are far less intensive.
We do not have a problem with the restrictions envisaged in the action programme on the use of chemical fertilisers. If we are advised that it is not good to put out extra fertiliser, or to put it out at a certain time of year, we will take that advice. However, we see this as a stocking rate restriction. I will have to reduce stock on my farm by 20% for no environmental gain.
I accept all that Mr. Dunne says as a practical dairy farmer. I was raised on a farm and have some knowledge of this. However, I make the point that while the stocking rate of 13,000 dairy farmers would be seriously affected by the 170 kg. restriction, there are another 125,000 farmers throughout the country who would not be affected in any way because they are not near that stocking rate or near that intensity of farming. Some shadow-boxing is going on here when Mr. Dunne says this is a problem for all farmers. I accept the point about storage but many farmers would not be affected because they would not have as much effluent as an intensive farm. If we could solve the problem for the intensive dairy farmers, would that not solve the problem for all farmers? We do not have to solve the problem for those who would not be affected by the 170 kg. per hectare restriction because they are not at, and have never been at, that level.
I thank the IFA delegation for attending the committee and giving an informative and interesting presentation. I am a farmer and have been actively involved in farming all my life. With regard to the nitrates directive, Ireland has a clean environment and is rated highly in the EU for the quality of its water. Our rivers and lakes are the least polluted in Europe. We must never lose sight of the fact that, over the past 20 years, huge investment has been made by farmers in the prevention of pollution. I know of farmers who are broke after installing cattle sheds and various tanks etc. For an average farmer with 70 to 100 acres, the cost has been over €50,000. All such works are improvements to the environment and the majority of farmers also comply with the rural environment protection scheme. Other areas, such as industry and local authorities, have serious problems. Numerous local authorities have not the funding to put in place plans that were proposed up to 15 years ago regarding sewage treatment plants. I agree totally with the president of the IFA that all parties concerned with our environment should get around a table to trash out this issue.
I disagree with the 170 kg. restriction. It must be increased and I agree with the IFA that it should be in the region of 200 kg. plus. As a farmer, I have great sympathy with the reaction to what is being imposed on the agricultural community. It is a diversionary exercise by the EU and works against the farming community.
Mr. Berkery
I am glad of the opportunity to reply. In response to Deputy McCormack, I have available the details of the near complete action programme. County Galway has a five month storage requirement, whether it is 170 kg. or not. It has a closed spreading period from 1 October to 15 January.
Mr. Devlin
Does that include bank holidays?
Mr. Berkery
There are more competent authorities than I on that point. The initiative must rest with the farmer for spreading. There can be a calendar date put down for spreading that takes no account of weather conditions. Invariably in those conditions there will be a concentration on spreading on the one fine day there is. That is not good either because more activity takes place during the one period
There was no muck spread during the election.
Mr. Berkery
The IFA has no policy on that.
The IFA said it was very busy.
Mr. Berkery
We will have to tell 15,000 farmers that they must have a field number, a date to spread and to put everything out on that date, when no prima facie case has been established that they are doing any damage to the environment or causing a risk to it according to scientific evaluation. That is unfair. The IFA is over-stretched trying to maintain some level of confidence in farming and to say to young people that there is a future in it. The committee must not allow us to get tied up in a way that anyone who has an alternative career will think agriculture is over-regulated and wonder why he or she should do because even in terms of income it is not hugely attractive. If there is prima facie evidence, the IFA will accept the scientific analysis and work on preventative measures but to place this cap on everyone and retard our best producers by 25% is not sustainable or viable.
As an organisation, we have considered this matter in some depth since 19 December last year, when the first consultation document was produced. At that time the omens were bad that we would take the most narrow legislative approach and implement it without due regard to the consequences. Nothing has changed since then but today we are saying there must be a new way forward based on good science. There is a strong case that Ireland is not the same as Denmark. We are not an 80% sand-based country and do not have the intensive livestock units or concentration that they have in Denmark. This directive stems from the Danish Presidency and the Danish experience in the 1990s; it is a Danish model being imposed on Irish conditions. There are certain things that we do in Ireland that we would not dream of imposing on the Danish.
There are now 25 members in the European Union and, with the exception of Denmark, where the problem started and from where the regulation originates, no other country has signed up to the regulation. The fact that 24 member states are not compliant and only one is partially compliant on the basis of the derogation raises a fundamental question about the directive. Why must Ireland be the second country to be compliant with the Danish terms?
Teagasc has a duty to give a clear assessment of the damage this could cause to Irish agriculture. I second the proposal to invite Teagasc before the committee for a future meeting.
That is not appropriate because we have two different groups that will make a presentation today and it is then up to us as a committee to decide how to proceed after hearing them.
Mr. Dillon
I was as reasonable as possible in the presentation. We have made a clear statement that derogation is not a runner and we will not accept it. If it is imposed on us, that is it, but we do not accept the idea. We must stick to the base that was clearly agreed in partnership, that appropriate circumstances must be agreed — that the area, not the individual farmer must be considered.
A nutrient management plan will cost farmers another €150 million but the country is 90% grass base. We have discussed this with scientists and they have stated there is very little run-off from a grass based system, particularly in the growing season. The 13,000 dairy farmers who will be affected by this directive represent 85% of the total milk production. The industry will suffer enormously if this directive goes through as proposed.
That is my point — the IFA should concentrate its efforts on saving those people.
Mr. Dillon
In Donegal and Leitrim people have to keep slurry in storage for six months, a costly process, and now they are being told they have to spread that on a particular day. It will be illegal to spread it on 15 January but on 16 January everyone can spread it. How much pollution will that cause? The objective is clean water, not the opposite.
We must return to a real partnership. We will sit around the table when we find a base with all the contributors but it must be right or we are starting off in the wrong way. We want the Government to come back with a new programme, a totally new strategy, from the one it has now. This nitrates directive has been in place for 13 years but it is only in the last two years that the Government put forward an action programme, one which takes nothing scientific into account.
I thank the committee members for their attention and I am pleased that they listened and will hopefully come up with a solution.
On behalf of the committee, I thank the IFA for its presentation and for dealing with our questions.
I welcome the officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I understand they are accompanied by an official from the Department of Agriculture and Food. Before they begin their presentation, I draw attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
Mr. Tom O’Mahony
I thank the chairman and members of the committee for the invitation. It is clear from the previous discussion that this is a hugely important issue for Ireland as a whole. We are pleased to have an opportunity to try to clarify the issue as best we can for the committee.
I am accompanied by Mr. John Sadlier, a principal officer in the water quality section of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Mr. Michael O'Donovan, a principal officer in the agriculture structures section of the Department of Agriculture and Food. As we have circulated to the committee a written presentation, I do not intend to make a long statement at this point. However, I will make a few introductory remarks. When we move on the question and answer session, I propose that the three of us will respond informally to questions, depending to whose area the question relates.
That is fine.
Mr. O’Mahony
Having heard the presentation by the IFA, I genuinely believe there is no great difference between the fundamental objective of the IFA and that of the Government. We would be fully in agreement with much of what has been said by the IFA this afternoon. The Government's objective is to meet Ireland's EU obligations in a manner which protects the environment, while ensuring that the type of farmer who needs to be able to spread up to 250 kg, and who can do so without damaging water quality, will continue to be allowed to do so. The difference between the Government and the IFA is not about this fundamental objective, it is about the way in which we achieve it.
There was a European Court of Justice finding against Ireland in March. It found that we were not in compliance with the nitrates directive on a number of fronts. The most significant of these fronts in the present context was the fact that we had not submitted an action programme which met the requirements of the directive. Throughout the 1990s, it had been Ireland's belief, and that of a number of other countries, that if we were following good agricultural practice and good environmental policies in regard to water quality, we were meeting the spirit of the nitrates directive; therefore, it was not necessary to meet the letter of it.
The European Court of Justice, in judgments against the Netherlands in particular, and more recently against Ireland, firmly found against this notion and found that compliance with the letter of the directive is an absolute requirement. This has strengthened greatly the hand of the EU Commission because it can now go back to the European Court of Justice seeking daily fines against us if we do not comply with the directive. Furthermore, it can start imposing penalties on the agricultural support payments to Ireland without having to go back to the European Court in the event that we are not compliant. This has left us in a situation where we must submit urgently to the Commission an action programme. The action programme will have to meet the letter of the directive. However, this is just one part of the picture. The other part of the picture is that under the directive we are entitled — this is annex 3 of the directive to which Mr. Berkery referred — to fix different amounts from the 170 kg, provided they can be fixed so as not to prejudice the achievement of the objectives. They must be specified on the basis of various criteria and so on.
Up until a recent court judgment, a view was taken by some member states that it was open to member states to decide what level they would fix, apply it, inform the Commission and leave it at that. The European Court of Justice, in a case against the Netherlands, found that is not the case and one must have the agreement of the Commission. In other words, one must apply to the Commission for a derogation in particular circumstances to apply a higher rate, set out the science underling it and so on and get permission from the Commission to do so. This is what the Government said it would do last year. Under Sustaining Progress, the Government said that in the context of the regime soon to be adopted to transpose the provisions of the nitrates directive, the Government will also use the flexibility in the directive to seek to secure European Commission approval for limits of up to 250 kg per hectare per annum to be allowable in appropriate circumstances. Nothing has changed. This is what the Government is still committed to doing.
The IFA made its position very clear. Mr. Dillon could not have been clearer this afternoon when he said the IFA is not interested in derogation. It wants the baseline to be higher. The problem, whether we like it or not, is that it is not open to us to have the baseline higher. The European Court of Justice has said firmly that we must go in with a baseline of 170 kg. It is then a matter for us to use the other provision to get the derogation to 250 kg.
The formula we are following is that set out in the directive about looking for a derogation and basing it on objective criteria such as long growing seasons and so on. What the Government is doing is in line with the suggestion Deputy McCormack made, namely, that approximately 13,000 farmers who need the higher limit would get the higher limit on the assumption that the Commission gives us the derogation we are seeking. That derogation will be based on the scientific argument drawn up by Teagasc and the two Departments and which will soon be submitted to the European Commission.
During the afternoon, reference was made to a document dated 7 May. It is only fair to everyone concerned, including to members of the committee, to stress that the document has no status. It was a working draft produced by some people who were involved in the exercise for internal discussion at a particular point. Clearly it should not have gone outside that particular group. I have no way of knowing how it did, but I must advise the committee that no weight whatsoever should be put on the document, or no weight should be put on any quotation from it. Obviously it would not be appropriate for me to start going through the various quotations from it. For example, particular concern was expressed about the idea that spreading would not be allowed on Saturday, Sunday or a bank holiday. There is no such suggestion in the current draft. The document which was quoted on a number of occasions during the afternoon should not be regarded as a draft action programme, because it is not.
Finally, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that the IFA is correct when it points to other causes of water quality problems, including the inadequate sewage treatment plants throughout the country in the past. Equally, members of the committee will be well aware of the billions of euro committed and spent on upgrading our sewage treatment plants over the past few years, and which will continue over the next few years.
I note the analysis in Dr. Morgan's paper but as I only received it this afternoon, I have not had an opportunity to study it in detail. However, I note that the data on which it is based relate to 2000 and 2001. Our investment programme has moved on rapidly since and will continue to do so over the next two or three years. We will be in full compliance with the relevant EU urban and wastewater treatment directive by next year. None of this alters the fact that just as the nitrates directive has a particular bearing on agriculture and fertiliser use, we must also meet specific EU requirements regarding sewage treatment and so forth. All of this has to be and is being dealt with.
Apparently, Ireland got a warning in March for not complying with the nitrates directive and there is a possibility that the European Court of Justice will impose daily fines on the Government for not doing so. How does this fit in with the fact that only one of the other 24 EU countries even has a programme? How will they be ticked off, or will they be ticked off? Do the same criteria apply to the other EU states with regard to complying with the directive?
How does nitrates directive fit in with the waterwaste treatment directive? My recollection of that directive is that by 2001 or 2002 every seaside town with a population of more than 10,000 was to be barred from discharging untreated sewage into the sea or waterways. That directive has not been fully implemented. The city of Galway has a population of 70,000 and until one month ago was discharging all of its untreated sewage into the sea and waterways.
Why is the nitrates directive being pursued so vigorously compared with other directives dealing with pollution of waterways? How many EU directives are lying on shelves and have never been looked at or implemented? There must be thousands. What pressure will be applied in respect of them? There is one about the colour of duck eggs. There are so many insignificant EU directives. Why is this one being pursued so vigorously? Is it to create a psychological effect?
Mr. O’Mahony
I will ask John Sadlier to respond to the question about what the Commission is doing about other member states. With regard to other directives, the Commission decides the areas in which it will take action against member states. However, when there is a European Court judgment against a country and the potential for major financial penalties, it certainly focuses the mind. We would undoubtedly be in the same position with regard to the urban wastewater treatment directive but for the fact that we have been able to show, through our investment programmes, that we have the strategies in place. The Deputy referred to Mutton Island. Major plants are opening on a monthly basis. By the end of next year, we will not only be in compliance with but will exceed the requirements of the urban wastewater treatment directive.
John Sadlier can discuss the Commission's focus on other countries.
That is not relevant; I am not anxious to pursue it. However, I am a little concerned. Mr. O'Mahony is saying we should accept the 170 kg limit and then seek derogations. The Government could seek a figure up to 250 kg for certain categories or where that would be necessary. Why is it being approached in that manner? It is as if I had an accident and was asked to accept €1,000 but was told that since I was worth €5,000, I should seek this afterwards. It seems a little ridiculous to be asked to accept something, yet be given a strong assurance that there is a strong possibility that a derogation can be secured for a figure up to 250 kg. Live horse and one will get grass, as the saying goes, but I doubt that there will be any grass at the end of the process. One's bargaining power would be much stronger if one fought for the maximum amount before accepting the directive.
Mr. O’Mahony
The problem is that the European Court has found that the starting point must be 170 kg and the Commission is now pursuing any country not complying with it.
I am concerned that when all this is agreed and accepted, there will not be the same intensity. Countries will be tempted to say the problem is solved, that they are complying with the directive and do not have to do any more about it.
Mr. O’Mahony
That would not be either politically or economically tenable for this country. Our position is clear and the Government has emphasised it. Ireland must obtain the derogation for the farmers who require it. That is the absolute condition. We must go about this in a particular way. It has been made clear to us by the Commission that it is the only way we will be allowed to pursue it. That is the bind in which we find ourselves.
The only thing that will save us is the fact that it is not politically tenable. More attention will now be given to matters not politically tenable than was the case previously.
Mr. Sadlier
Ireland is the only member state of the original 15 which has not submitted an action programme under the nitrates directive to the European Commission.
Has everybody signed up to it?
Mr. Sadlier
The directive applies in full to all member states. It requires them to do a number of things, many of which we have done. However, one of the requirements is that a state should prepare an action programme to protect water against pollution from farming sources. We have not prepared that action programme. This is the only member state of the original 15 which has not done so. We are out on a limb on that front.
It is worthwhile to bear in mind, as has been acknowledged by other speakers, that the clarification arising from recent court judgments puts everything on a different level. The court case against the Netherlands, in particular, which was published last October, clarified that the directive specified a limit of 170 kg. If one wishes to operate above that limit, one must apply to the Commission for a derogation to operate higher limits, support the application by reference to objective criteria and be granted a derogation approved by the Commission. That was the clarification provided in the October judgment which had not been available previously. The Commission is now in a position to say to all member states that there is clear guidance from the court on what the directive means. All member states now need to revise their action programmes and implementation plans to ensure they are in compliance with the directive, as interpreted by the court.
The most recent policy document I have seen from any member state since which responded to the court is a consultation paper published in Northern Ireland in April this year. It is a consultation paper about its action programme and states, with regard to the limit on the amount of organic manure applied to land, that the directive requires it to be less than 170 kg of nitrogen per hectare per year and that the possibility of a derogation will be pursued separately with the Commission. The authorities in Northern Ireland believe there might be scope to seek a derogation up to 210 kg in certain cases. It is setting a lower target than we are in that respect or a higher level of environmental protection.
It is clear that the directive requires member states to operate a general limit of 170 kg. If a member state wishes to operate above that limit in relevant areas, it must apply to the Commission for a derogation, get approval and operate within the terms of the derogation. That is the framework in which we are now operating.
I also welcome the officials from the Department and those from the IFA. Over the past few weeks various statements have been made. The threat of sanctions by the European Court of Justice has been a recurring theme. I find that difficult to accept because conditions differ across the 25 member states.
I also take issue with the impression being created that local authorities are not capable of ensuring that water pollution is kept to a minimum. Most local authorities throughout the State are compliant. Farmers in County Laois have two options. The first is to reduce stocking density. The second is to secure more land, which they cannot do. Laois County Council has had only minuscule problems with nitrates, having done much work on the problem. Of 2,900 samples taken over the past three years, less than 1% of the county had nitrates above the permitted level of 6 mg per litre. It is worthwhile taking into account that this work was done winter and summer and right through a very wet spring with particular attention being paid to areas where slurry was being spread, and there was no increase whatsoever in nitrate levels. That is not merely my opinion. It is in the local authority reports and can be backed up. I suggest the situation is quite similar in my neighbouring county, Offaly, and in Kilkenny. The only areas where there appears to be a problem is where there is no growing plan for the winter months. The same could be said of set-aside land during the summer. This European invention was imposed upon farmers and is causing more problems for water quality than good farming practice as we know it.
I accept that the aim of the nitrates directive is clean water. Our water quality has improved in the past ten years without an action plan, according to the EPA. As a member of a local authority I want to see this improvement continue. However, I do not believe that what is being proposed by the Department will improve water quality. The IFA has consistently stated that this is a very serious issue. In my short political career, whenever an issue erupts within the IFA we are usually invited to a packed meeting where tables were banged, but little came of that. Over the past few weeks direct one to one debate with Deputies emphasising to us that this is a most serious situation has impinged on my mind and, I hope, on the Department's.
Deputy Allen made a suggestion some time ago, and I take the Chairman's advice in terms of withdrawing afterwards. I am not from a farming background, but I have major difficulty when an authoritative agency gives clear-cut advice and we, as practising politicians, here to implement legislation, cannot find out the substance of that advice. My information, and I can only speak anecdotally, is that the advice of Teagasc is not consistent with what the Department claims it to be. That is something we need to investigate.
I am also aware that scientific information from Professor John Mulqueen of NUI, Galway and practical research at Moorepark Research Centre, casts grave doubts on what has been suggested. These are specific issues of transparency and openness that must be brought back into this debate. Otherwise we are being asked to support something that quite clearly is not backed up by expertise.
To return to the issue of the European Court of Justice, our countryside is very different from every other country in the European Union in that more than 90% of our countryside is covered by a growing plant, namely, grass. I find it difficult to believe we should have the same cap of 170 kg that applies in every other country if the conditions in each of the European countries are different. If conditions are different an automatic derogation should apply rather than granting it on a field by field basis.
Regarding the question of derogation being essential for commercial farmers, we have heard various officials talk at length about Denmark. Denmark got a derogation which lasted for two years and is about to end. However, it applied to only 5% of the country and was applied on a field by field basis. This would be of no use whatsoever to our commercial farmers who need a limit of 250 kg on the ongoing basis without unnecessary bureaucracy. We have just come from a debate about moving away from bureaucracy and now we are talking about even greater bureaucracy. This change makes a nonsense of the success we have had up to now.
There are some pig farmers in my constituency. We should, for a moment, ponder on the fact that what is proposed will finish off whatever pig farmers are left because they will not have access to land on which to spread pig slurry. Most pig farmers in my constituency have commercial dairy herds already, and research has shown no effect on groundwater with up to 250 kg of organic nitrogen. We need to achieve as close to this figure as possible, and if scientific evidence indicates a problem, then we should act. We should allow land spreading whenever soil temperatures are above five degrees, not on the basis of dates as suggested at present. I do not want to refer to confidential documents. However, the word is out that there is to be no spreading at weekends or on bank holidays. While that might be only a very minor aspect of the whole issue, to practising farmers it appears clear that somebody who could make such a proposal is not in touch with reality. If they cannot get that right, how can they get matters right overall?
This debate has been somewhat different from previous ones affecting the farming community. It has not taken the usual form of table pounding but has involved direct and sincere presentations by interested parties who see their livelihoods being affected in the future. In the recent European and local election campaigns this issue seldom cropped up because unfortunately people do not yet realise its impact. If it is not resolved in its early stages, it will become a greater problem later.
Any farmers I have met say that if scientific research proves it to be necessary, they will accept the Commission's proposal, but that in the absence of such evidence they cannot go along with it. I hear on the ground that Teagasc is not supporting the directive and that information has been backed up. It is a pity we are moving on and leaving that parked and not examining it. If there is evidence, we have a responsibility to act on it, but we should at least await the scientific evidence.
Deputy Cregan had a question.
My colleague has given a very eloquent presentation and has touched on all the vital issues. I have a few questions. First, regarding the reason for the implementation of this regulation, am I right in suggesting that member states are required to identify water which is vulnerable to nitrates from agriculture? I presume the answer to that is "yes" or "no". The rest of my question depends on having an answer to that. I presume it is "yes".
Mr. O’Mahony
Yes.
I refer to the judgment of 11 March 2004 in which the European Court of Justice held that Ireland had failed to comply with the nitrates directive on four different counts. The first count mentioned that we had not identified completely all waters which could be affected by pollution from nitrates. I take it that we still have not done so. How can the Commission impose a ceiling of 170 kg in the absence of evidence that an excess is causing pollution in our groundwater? Where is the evidence to suggest that a reduction to 170 kg. is necessary? The word "benchmark" was used earlier on by Mr. Berkery. I presume the whole idea is to identify a base figure and then monitor improvement as we go along. In the absence of such a benchmark, how can we can monitor improvement and satisfy ourselves and the EU that we are able to do that?
I understand from what has been said that the only option is for Ireland to seek this derogation. It was mentioned that the 13,000 intensive farmers could still carry on more or less as normal. Denmark secured a derogation which is about to run out in August. In my opinion, that is quite restrictive. If we were to secure a derogation would the same regulations apply? Would the derogation be as restrictive on those intensive farmers as it was to Danish farmers? I would like the officials to comment on the financial investment necessary to put additional storage facilities in place. We were told by Mr. Dillon in his presentation that there was an estimated additional cost of €1 billion on the farming community in order to achieve this. It was also mentioned that slurry is being spread on Saturdays, Sundays and bank holidays. I am not sure if the answer given stated that that never appeared on any document, or that it was never an issue. I have a copy of the working document in front of me, although I probably should not have, and it states it clearly. If it is in the document, someone had to be thinking that way. It is ludicrous and I could never see any reasoning for it. However, I am glad that it has been cleared up.
Perhaps we could have some clarification on the points I raised. I find it difficult to understand why these restrictions are being imposed upon us since there has been no identification of the difficulties caused by the levels of fertiliser being currently spread.
Mr. O’Mahony
We do not need convincing here that Ireland is a special case. We absolutely understand that. We are obviously not agricultural experts in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, but we have had enough exposure to fully understand that the nature of the business in Ireland is very different from that in Europe. It is very different from that in Denmark and anywhere else. The scientific case for the derogation has to be basically about that, and it will be the case that we will put to the European Commission. The result that we will seek for Ireland will be something that is based on the science that we put forward. This will refer to the nature of Ireland's industry, our grass based system, our climate and so on. It will be based on that alone and not on anyone else's outcome. It would have been more helpful to us if the European Court of Justice had ruled that a country in Ireland's position does not have to start with a baseline of 170 kg. Unfortunately, that was not the result that we got. We have to operate within the European Court of Justice ruling. That is basically the starting position from where we need to go forward.
Mr John Sadlier will answer specific questions by Deputy Moloney and Deputy Cregan and Mr. Michael O'Donovan will speak about the storage facilities.
Mr. John Sadlier
As the IFA speakers have said, this topic is extremely wide and complex. There are so many aspects that it is very easy to get focused on individual technical aspects. The whole purpose of the nitrates directive is to protect water quality against pollution from agriculture. It does not deal with anything else. The sister directive on urban waste water treatment has been mentioned quite a bit and they run side by side. The urban waste water treatment directive imposes obligations on member states to do certain things regarding sewage treatment plants. As has been mentioned, Ireland will have completely complied with every requirement of that directive by the end of 2005. We were a little bit late in getting some of the larger plants in operation such as Mutton Island, which ran into special delays. We will have exceeded its requirements by the end of next year.
Water pollution in Ireland is caused mainly by excessive loss to water from various human activities. These losses to water include phosphorous and to a lesser extent, nitrates. The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that something in the order of 73% of phosphorous loss to water is lost from agriculture and 82% of nitrogen lost to water is lost from agriculture. Agriculture has been identified by the EPA, with the benefit of all the research available from all sources, as being the predominant source of pollution of water in Ireland. To put it into perspective, the potential impact of livestock on water quality is huge in comparison to the potential impact of the human population. According to EPA and Teagasc documents that I have seen, the biological oxygen demand, or BOD, from the manure generated by the livestock population of Ireland is the equivalent to a human population of around 68 million. We are talking about large and small scale and large is definitely the agricultural sector.
The question was asked whether the derogation would be as strict as that obtained by Denmark. Denmark is the only country that applied for and received a derogation so it is the only country to which we can refer. We have to acknowledge that Denmark's application was made due to circumstances in Denmark. They applied for whatever they applied for. We cannot say with any certainty how different the Irish derogation will be. The limit on the derogation has been set on a scientific basis in European law that an amount of up to 170 kg. of organic nitrogen can be applied to land, in accordance with good agricultural practice, without posing an unacceptable risk of water pollution. When one operates above that level, the risk of water pollution becomes significantly more severe. A higher level of care is therefore required. The purpose of a derogation is to ensure that farmers who are operating at a level above 170 kg., which is at the higher risk levels of livestock application, are subject to a higher level of supervision. For example I expect that some form of requirement to prepare a nutrient management plan would apply to farmers. They should operate in accordance with that and keep good records of the amount of livestock manure and other fertilisers that they apply to their lands. That is the whole philosophy behind the directive. In preparing working documents input is made by many people and many people contribute possible measures which can be applied. We, particularly, look at the measures applied in other countries which might or might not be useful in an Irish context. In that context, I can easily imagine that the Saturday and Sunday proposal would have been mentioned as a possibility. Although I cannot remember exactly which country it is, I am aware that slurry spreading is prohibited in some countries on Saturdays and Sundays. This probably relates to slurry spreading in areas which are very close to large urban centres. If I had to guess, I would say it possibly applies in the Netherlands, which is intensively populated with people and livestock. As a nuisance protection for the human population slurry spreading may be prohibited on Saturdays and Sundays there. It is not a wild idea which came out of the heads of Irish officials.
Mr. O’Donovan
It is more than likely that there will be investment costs to farmers. It may be substantial in some cases. At our request, for the past few months Teagasc has been carrying out a national farm facilities survey to try to identify the scale of the situation. The results of that are just coming to hand. They are going through a final period of verification before we can make use of them. The IFA president, Mr. Dillon, mentioned that his organisation's survey talked about an investment cost in the region of €1 billion. The indications from what we have so far from Teagasc is that this would be on the high side. That is not to say there will not be a substantial potential cost. Some farmers may choose to avoid that by scaling down their activities, which is easy for them to do now that decoupling is coming into effect from January. Others will choose to invest.
It is important to say that those who choose to invest will have access to substantial grants from the Department. Since 1996, we have paid out more than €250 million in grant aid to farmers for investment in waste storage and other facilities and 24,000 farmers have availed of it. Part of the nitrates directive elements of the Sustaining Progress agreement was to improve the investment schemes further to make them more accessible to farmers. We are now in a situation where the majority of farmers will be eligible for support from these grant schemes.
Teagasc's primary role is to provide scientific advice. It will be playing a pivotal role in the preparations for the derogation arrangements. We will be depending on Teagasc, probably most of all, to provide the scientific justification that will allow us to permit farmers to continue operating at up to 250 kg if they need to.
We have been given no assurances that there will be any further improvements in water quality if this directive is implemented.
Reference has been made to the possibility of not spreading slurry on Sundays. Inspectors from various Departments and agencies do not work on Sundays while farming is a seven day a week job. I would like to hear a brief comment on that point.
The system of farming we operate in Ireland is different from that operated in any other EU country. It is grass based. Irish officials should push that point first.
How many ground water sources have been identified by the EPA as having been polluted by farmers spreading fertiliser? I have been spreading fertiliser all my life. Will someone explain to me how fertiliser spread by a tractor in a dry field will pollute water sources? If one were on the side of a hill, I accept that a flood could carry fertiliser down and pollute some water but no one spreads fertiliser on the side of a mountain. I am talking about people spreading fertiliser on low land and fields. They do not throw fertiliser in hip and furze bushes and fionnán and bog. This is the most ridiculous story I ever heard. We are not to be allowed spread fertiliser on Saturday or Sunday. Will we be allowed to spread it on fool's day on 1 April? They might as well say no fertiliser should be spread on fool's day as on Saturday, Sunday, Easter Monday or a bank holiday. Would it not be as well to draw a red line and tell farmers to forget about milking the cows on Saturday and Sunday but to wait until the five working days to milk them? This is the greatest cock and bull story ever. Are they trying to hunt the people who are living on the land out of it? What, in the name of God, are we up to at all?
I am totally opposed to the new regulation on spreading slurry. We had slurry spreaders years ago. We paid big prices to install tanks that cost thousands of pounds. They cost between £35,000 and £60,000. Fellows borrowed and are paying for it and now they cannot spread slurry. The whole story is a cock and a bull and a ridiculous set up. It makes no sense to me.
I put some questions which, I feel, were not answered. I accept the response made by Mr. O'Mahony. He accepts that Ireland's is a special case and the European Court will determine that. I presume that judgment will be based on reports coming from this country. Those reports will determine whether or not we get a derogation or whether it is 170 kg, 210 kg or 250 kg. In Mr. O'Mahony's opening comment he said the Department and the IFA were in agreement. I cannot see that. I see a huge gulf.
I understand the workings of Government but there is something I do not understand. There is talk — not loose talk but in what I would consider respectable circles — that the recommendations coming from Teagasc are not open to public view because they cannot be stood over. I am not trying to make a challenge out of this but there is a feeling that the scientific evidence from Teagasc is not consistent with what we are about to propose.
I also asked why we have disregarded the scientific information proposed by Professor John Mulqueen of NUI Galway and the researchers in Moorpark. I am not an expert on this matter and I must pick up what I hear. When people ask me, in good faith, to make a case at this level and suggest that they are not happy and that there is a huge gulf, I must agree with them. I have not heard anyone say that what Teagasc has found is not consistent with what I am saying. I have heard no one who supports the nitrates directive say that Teagasc is behind it. Until that question is resolved for me I will have a problem with the directive. The IFA tells me it will accept what the EU is saying if scientific evidence supports it, but I do not hear that being said. If we were talking about a country so far removed from other European countries where conditions are so different it would be obvious we were starting not on a fundamental base of 170 kg. but from a realisation that was so far removed from conditions elsewhere that such conditions should not be considered. I would like to hear the specifics on this. I hope, as Deputy Allen suggested, we can get this out into the open. We have learned serious lessons over the past few weeks regarding the public's difficulties in terms of accepting diktats or directives. I have major concerns about this directive. It would be problematic for me, at a local meeting of the IFA or my political party in Laois, to backup what I am hearing.
I, too, would like to agree with previous speakers as regards the cost of implementation of the waste water directive which cost billions of euro. The imposition of levies at local authority level in order to reduce such waste will continue to cost a great deal.
Is the application regarding the introduction of the nitrate directive sustainable in terms of cost? If the figures to backup that derogation cannot be reached, how can a case be made to implement it?
Mr. O’Mahony
Members have raised quite a number of questions which we will divide between us. I will make some general comments and will then ask my colleagues to deal with the questions regarding Teagasc and the technical issues relating to water quality and how water becomes polluted.
I will try to once and for all lay to rest the Saturday, Sunday and public holiday matter. The reason it exists in such countries as it does probably has something to do with pressure from urban populations because the odour is not around at the weekends. However, no such proposal is being considered here. No such proposal will be included in the action programme. I hope that will be the end of that matter.
I do not wish to repeat myself but, I believe that to a large extent the President of the IFA and I are singing from the same hymn sheet though I am not sure if he accepts that. I have no disagreement as regards his view on the needs of Irish agriculture. The difference arises in terms of how we go about getting it. I have explained our clear knowledge of the legal reality we face and have to work within. That means we must go about matters in a different way. I will ask my colleague, Michael O'Donovan, to deal with the queries regarding Teagasc. Mr. Sadlier will then deal with matters relating to water quality issues.
Mr. Michael O’Donovan
I am aware the committee intends to hold direct talks with Teagasc. There is no secret or mystery regarding Teagasc's position. The Department of Agriculture and Food would equally not rush into a situation which was disadvantageous to farmers. The 170 kg. limitation is a legal issue. It is not a matter of science. Mr. O'Mahony explained why there is no way around this. Some of the scientific comment that has appeared, be it directly from Teagasc or via Teagasc or other sources, contains an element of wishful thinking or special pleading and may not stand up to more rigorous examination. However, all of the comment from Teagasc to the Department and in other directions supports the point that an absolute limit of 170 kg. is too low for Ireland given the nature of our climate, farming activities and water quality.
All Teagasc advice and comment will support the application for a derogation. There is no contradiction between the position taken by the Departments and the advice from Teagasc. The Department's position is based on a legal reality. We equally accept that science will support our case for a derogation.
Mr. Sadlier
Today's debate has focused on one aspect in terms of water quality, slurry spreading. The action programme will address farmyard management. Farmyards are managed in a way which ensures that rain falling on soiled land does not make its way, willy nilly, into drains, streams and rivers. Farmyards are properly constructed and managed. Deputy Healy-Rae mentioned the spreading of slurry on a dry day. A dry day on its own is not good enough. A key feature in carrying out farming in accordance with good practice is spreading fertiliser on land only when there is a crop requirement for it. It is pointless, from an economic point of view, for farmers to spread any form of fertiliser, chemical or organic, unless crops need it at the time.
This is not new. A code of good agriculture practice operates under the nitrates directive agreed by the Departments of Agriculture and Food and Environment, Heritage and Local Government and published in 1996. It is supported by the farming organisations and states that land spreading of slurry should be carried out as early as practical in the growing season so as to maximise the uptake of nutrients. If fertiliser of any kind, but particularly organic fertiliser, is spread on land during the non-growing season when crops do not take up the nitrogen then one way or another that nitrogen will be lost to the environment. It will make its way down through the soil into ground water or, with the onset of rain, will be leaked into water or lost into the atmosphere as nitrogen dioxide, contributing to climate change.
There is no reason, from an agricultural point of view, other than waste disposal, to spread organic fertiliser on land during the non-growing season. That is a basic requirement of the approach in the action programme. The agreed code of practice is eight years old. As a general practice slurry spreading should be avoided during the non-growing season which varies throughout the country depending on local conditions between the months of October and February. A dry day during that time is not sufficient reason for spreading slurry. It should be done during the growing season only. It follows then that if one cannot spread slurry for four, five or six months during the year, one should have slurry storage capacity for that length of time. That too is a basic plank of the directive which is reflected in the code of practice which points out that slurry storage requirements on a farm vary from place to place but generally should be four, five or six months. That is what is contained in the proposed action programme.
The question was asked whether water quality would improve. It must improve and will improve with better management of farmyards and better practice as regards the spreading of slurry. It is quite possible that water quality in Ireland could improve quite quickly because the nature of ground waters here is that they are faster moving than those in continental Europe which are more in the nature of static underground lakes — when nitrates gets into them it is virtually impossible to flush them out. That is not the case in Ireland where we could have a more rapid response in that regard. I am not sure if there are other questions which I have not answered.
Mention was made of an agreement reached by both Departments and the IFA. That is a commendable and sensible way of doing business. What level of engagement has there been between both Departments and the IFA since the beginning of the year? Are there plans to engage further before we apply for a derogation? Mr. O'Mahony referred to singing from the same hymn sheet as the IFA and stated twice that he saw very little difference between what he was trying to achieve and what the IFA was looking for. It would be sensible if there was engagement at this point.
I support the call made by my colleague for representatives of Teagasc to be invited to appear before the committee. Reference has been made to the EPA, the monitoring body, on a couple of occasions. It would be appropriate to discuss with it some of the questions we have asked today.
Mr. Sadlier
I have worked in the water quality section of the Department since 1998 or 1999. To the best of my knowledge, since February 2001, my colleagues and I and the EPA have been involved in continuous meetings with the IFA and the other farming bodies on this topic. The EPA has met the farming bodies. We have gone to the Irish Farm Centre on numerous occasions for meetings, attended conferences organised by the IFA and its annual general meeting. A commitment has been made to the farming bodies that the revised action programme, when available, will be made available to them and other interested parties for comment before it is sent to the Commission. Obviously, that commitment will be honoured.
Mr. O’Mahony
I thank the committee. The questions have been very focused and afforded us a good opportunity to try to clear up any public confusion about the situation in which we find ourselves. Certainly, there is public confusion about the difference between what is scientifically necessary agriculturally and what is legally necessary. Mr. O'Mahony put this very well in his last intervention. There are certain things we are legally obliged to do but we are proposing to do them in a way that also meets the scientific requirement. Ultimately, that is the only way forward for us.
I thank Mr. O'Mahony and his two colleagues for their presentation and answering the questions as they did. It has been a useful exercise from the committee's point of view. We will decide later how we should proceed.
The joint committee adjourned at 5.05 p.m. sine die.