Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 20 May 2004
8 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the discussions he has had with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government with respect to the nitrates directive; and if he will make a statement on the matter.[14756/04]
View answerThe implementation of the nitrates directive is a matter in the first instance for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. My Department has had ongoing discussions with that Department on the development of a draft action programme giving further effect to the directive. This draft action programme was presented in December 2003 to representatives of the main farming organisations and other stakeholders. A period of two months was provided for stakeholders to submit their comments on the document in writing to either or both Departments. Written submissions on the draft action programme have been received from some 70 stakeholders, including all the main farming organisations, and a revised draft is being prepared by officials of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government together with officials from my Department.
Can the Minister confirm that the farm organisations and other bodies are wasting their time lobbying to have the 170 level increased? How many farmers will it impact? What is the estimated cost if the revised draft is as we have been led to believe?
The directive is primarily a matter for the Commission. Contrary to what some people believe, it is not Commissioner Fischler but the Commissioner for the Environment, Ms Wallström, who has responsibility for this matter. The general limit is a matter for that Commissioner. However, we have received indications from the Commission that following the court decisions, this has gone from being a scientific matter to being a legal one. While the Commission indicates that 170 must stand as a general limit, it would be sympathetic to considering a derogation to the 250 level, which we seek.
The number of farmers involved has been the subject of some research by Teagasc. It has been suggested that up to 10,000 farmers would need a derogation at the 170 level. In other words, 129,000 of the 130,000 farmers would be within the limit. In reality those 10,000 are the more commercial and intensive farmers and their competitiveness in the EU and with third countries could be stymied. It is important that we get a directive implemented here and an action plan, which will not stymie our better and our more intensive farmers. I believe that can be done by way of derogation provided we can get the minimum of red tape and conditionality attached to those derogations.
I believe my question has been answered. I wanted to know whether he thought the view of Commissioner Fischler would have any impact, since at last week's meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food he seemed to think that a derogation would not be a huge difficulty.
How will the derogation work? Will it be on an individual farmer basis or on a townland basis? While I know it will be done on a scientific basis, would it be possible for one farmer in Offaly to get a derogation?
I am not sure. The sequence is to have an action plan submitted to Brussels in the next two months and parallel with that an application for a derogation. Commissioners Fischler and Wallström have indicated that they would be sympathetic to a generous derogation. We will not be sure about the details attached to a derogation and whether it will apply by individual farmer or otherwise until we get to the negotiations. However, we will have the best possible scientific evidence. As I said, discussions on the general limit have moved into the legal arena because of a Dutch court case and the Irish court case on 11 March. With the derogation, we can rely heavily on scientific support.
I appeal to stakeholders and the social partners to meet representatives of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Agriculture and Food along with Teagasc to work out a sensible and practical derogation from the directive, which will allow our more commercial and better farmers the competitive edge they need to continue in business in the future.
