Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 18 February 2004
92 Mr. Coveney asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if his Department has had discussions with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government with respect to the nitrates directive; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4834/04]
View answerThe implementation of the nitrates directive is a matter for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in the first instance. A draft action programme giving effect to the directive, which was prepared by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in conjunction with my Department and in consultation with Teagasc, was presented to representatives of the main farming organisations and other stakeholders in December 2003. A period of two months, which was provided for stakeholders to submit their comments on the document in writing to either or both Departments runs until tomorrow, 19 February 2004. Definitive proposals for an action programme will be submitted to the European Commission when the consultation process is finished and consideration has been given to the various submissions.
May I ask the Chair why Question No. 106 was not taken with Question No. 92, as they are more or less identical? We would have had more time to discuss the issue if the questions had been taken together.
The Chair has no control over such matters.
Is the Minister aware that the nitrates directive is the single biggest issue being discussed in agricultural circles at the moment? It is of huge concern to farmers in our part of the country and elsewhere. As the Minister for Agriculture and Food is responsible for ensuring that farming continues in a viable manner, does he accept that the closure period, whereby farmers would not be able to spread any slurry for three and a half months in the year, is not a workable proposal for practical farms? It may make sense in other European countries where the ground may be frozen for two to three months of the year. However, in Ireland, with the long growing season, it is an unsuitable measure. What are the Minister's views on that?
The second issue of concern is the proposal for storage capacity that farmers will be required to have in their yards, as a result of this long closure period. The majority of farmers would accept, though they will not say it officially, closure for one month a year, say in December. However, expecting farmers to have storage for 16 weeks in the south, 20 weeks in the midlands and west and 24 weeks in the north-west will make commercial farming non-viable in the future.
The nitrates directive has been in place for 13 years. The time has come for the matter to be addressed due to environmental and legal reasons. Ireland is currently before the European Court and a judgment is due in the coming weeks. There is no option, legally or otherwise, but to address this 1991 directive. It has been put on the long finger for too long. I am not apportioning any blame, as I am as much to blame as anybody else.
The Minister is more to blame than anybody else.
In the directive, there is a limit of 170 kg. per hectare. The draft Irish proposal has asked for a limit of 250 kg. per hectare. Hopefully by tomorrow, the stakeholders, the farming organisations and others will have responded to the draft proposal. The final proposal will then be sent to Brussels. The main aim is to get derogation on the limit up to 250 kg. The majority of farmers will be excluded by this limit and will not have problems with it.
The closure period for the application of fertiliser on land is based on the 1996 code of good farming practice document, which the farming bodies were involved in drawing up. Teagasc is directly involved with individual farmers in drawing up inventories of the capacity requirements of their farms, called the Farm Facilities Survey. With good planning in this area, this matter can be ameliorated too.
It is most important to address this problem environmentally and legally. The substantial net payments that Ireland receives are being jeopardised because of non-compliance with this directive. I appreciate some of the difficulties with this directive. However, they are not insurmountable and, with good forward planning, they can be implemented with the derogations sought and at the minimum cost to farmers.
For the last year, we have listened to the term "freedom to farm". However, at the first hurdle, the situation is more draconian than any other previous red tape situation. Would the Minister agree that if the proposals remain in their current form, they will reduce the options open for those in the dairy industry in particular who were told to either upsize to stand still, get more land, decrease production or forgo single farm payments? Does the Minister believe there is a chance of securing an increase on the 170 kg. level? Does he believe the 250 kg. or 210 kg. level will be agreed? Has he looked at the concept of nitrogen vulnerable zones rather than an all-country classification? Does he agree that there is scope for looking at such a system and if not, why?
Is it not the case that Northern Ireland has successfully applied for a derogation, allowing Northern Irish farmers to apply 250 kg. of organic nitrogen per hectare? If so, why should there be difficulties in the South? Is the Minister blaming farmers and farming organisations for the length of the proposed closure period because they recommended it through good practice proposals? If he is, I am not hearing that from farming organisations.
Does the Minister agree with Teagasc's draft action programme that provides for storage periods at individual farm levels less than the specified minimum periods where it can be demonstrated that it is consistent with reducing pollution potential? In other words, there is an opening for reducing the amount. Does the Minister agree that these proposals will involve a significant, in some cases insurmountable, expense for farmers if they have to provide such storage facilities?
The Minister claims that the majority of farmers will not be affected by these proposals. Will the Department, however, spearhead the roll-out of anaerobic digestion programmes given their successful application in reducing nitrate problems on land? Can the Department look at the efficient management of nutrients more proactively, rather than simply saying it aims to reduce nitrates?
There are many ways of proactively addressing this problem. One of the reasons farmers are advised not to put out nitrogen for a number of weeks is that grass growth may not be as vigorous in those months as in others. If grass growth is vigorous it absorbs the nitrogen; otherwise it is leached off into rivers and streams.
A proposal must be submitted to Brussels before a derogation will be considered as the Commission cannot consider the situation until it receives a proposal. Tomorrow is the final day for responses from stakeholders and farming organisations. The proposal will be submitted to Brussels and I am confident that a limit of up to 250 kg. per hectare, like in Northern Ireland, will be achieved. Denmark received a derogation of up to 230 kg. per hectare. However, these derogations were only considered when the applications were made.
With regard to storage capacity and anaerobic digestion, individual farmers can make a case to the competent authority, which is the local authority, and get a derogation for whatever system they have. The Departments of Agriculture and Food and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, together with the farming organisations, signed up to the 1996 protection of waters from pollution by nitrates directive. It is not a figment of anyone's imagination.
It was okay to sign up in 1996 because it was felt it would never see the light of day. However, Ireland is now before the courts, 13 years after the 1991 directive. Up to 100,000 farmers are below the 170 kg. per hectare limit. Up to another 6,000 farmers will be excluded if the 210 kg. is set as the limit. Another 2,500 farmers will be excluded at 230 kg. per hectare. Almost all farmers would be excluded if the limit was 250 kg. per hectare.
Last year the Department was asked for additional money for the REPS and we got an additional €70 million. We were also asked for additional money for farm waste management systems for which we got a substantial increase, as well as an increase in thresholds in the dairy hygiene regulations to exclude waste and so on. That was in preparation for this nitrates directive. I am confident that we can get the derogations from Brussels which will allow the REPS continue, which is worth €260 million per annum to Irish farmers. Last year the area-based compensatory payment scheme was held up for a number of weeks because we had failed to address the problem of the nitrates directive. In my view, we should send our application to Brussels and then seek the derogations which will make it possible, so there will not be an undue burden on farmers to comply with the directive.
What about the nitrogen vulnerable zones?
Does the Minister believe that this will spell the end of commercial farming as we know it? Those using a high quantity of fertiliser are the top class farmers and will be extremely badly hit. Will the Minister comment on that?
If the derogation is conceded for 250 kg. that implies that there is no pollution factor, no threat to the water supply and so on. Will the Minister agree that will impose a serious financial burden on those people who fall outside that who have higher applications? Is there any way that the bureaucracy and financial implications can be addressed to alleviate that problem?
It was suggested to me that water quality in our rivers is improving at the moment. Is the court case the only reason for the Minister's insistence that we implement the directive at this stage irrespective of the consequences to farmers?
I thank the Minister for his detailed answers. I accept that he will make efforts to get a derogation to move from 170 kg. to 250 kg. but will he also seek a derogation for the closure periods? Does he accept that grass grows in October and sometimes into November? Certainly last winter it did.
Will the Minister please clarify the policy on the nitrogen vulnerable zones? Does he see any opening for those?
On the final point, Government policy advocates a national zone. We believe that is the right way to go. The intensive farmers will be most affected by the nitrates directive. In yesterday's Farming Independent the Teagasc expert on dairying showed that a person with 100 acres, or 40 hectares, of land can produce up to 104,000 gallons from that land and still remain within the 210 kg per hectare limit. Good farming practice is essential.
In response to Deputy Coveney, I accept that grass grows in winter months. There is no month of the year in the benign constituency that Deputy O'Keeffe and I represent when we do not cut our lawns and have chores to do around the garden because there is growth virtually all year round.
That is true.
We will make those points to Brussels in that context too. In response to Deputy Upton, we are not serious offenders in regard to over-application of nitrogen and phosphates. Nevertheless, there is some pollution of our streams and rivers which are an important asset that we must maintain. With good farming practice there is no need for the level of application we have in many instances. It has been shown, for example, that very few farmers carry out soil analysis to see exactly the amount of fertilisation needed for their soil. It comes down to sensible, good farming practice and for that reason, apart from the legal implications of the court case and the vulnerability of our very large payments under REPS and other schemes, if we do not comply with the directive, they too will be affected. For good environmental reasons it is important that we comply with this directive.
