JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 22 Apr 2009

EU Nitrates Regulations: Discussion.

Chairman

I welcome officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to discuss the revised nitrates regulations 2009. I welcome Mr. Tim Morris, Mr. Damien Allen and Mr. Pat Duggan from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and Mr. Paul Dillon, Mr. Tony Reid and Mr. Tom Quinlivan from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Before I call on the witnesses to make their presentation I draw their 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 they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Allen to make an opening statement.

Mr. Damien Allen

I will make a statement on behalf of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I thank the Chairman for his introduction and thank the joint committee for the opportunity to appear before it and outline the recent changes to the nitrates regulations. We have prepared a detailed note for the information of members of the committee, including a detailed appendix which goes through each of the main changes. While I do not propose to go through all of the details in the appendix, I will focus on the main points of the recent revisions.

The nitrates directive, a Council directive of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, was adopted in 1991. The objective of the directive is to reduce water pollution caused by nitrates and phosphorus from agricultural sources and to prevent further such pollution. The primary emphasis is on the management of livestock manures and other fertilisers. The nitrates directive requires member states to do the following: monitor and identify waters which are polluted or liable to pollution by nitrates and phosphorus from agriculture; identify the area or areas to which an action programme should be applied to protect water from pollution from nitrates and phosphorus; develop and implement action programmes to reduce and prevent such pollution in the identified area or areas, such action programmes are to be implemented and updated on a four-year cycle; monitor the effectiveness of the action programmes; and report to the EU Commission on progress.

The nitrates regulations are primarily designed to implement the nitrates directive, but there is a second directive of relevance, namely, the dangerous substances directive. It is relevant because it lists phosphorus as a dangerous substance. The significance of this will become apparent later in the presentation. Following extensive consultation with interested parties in 2005, including the main farming organisations, a nitrates action programme was established. This was given statutory effect in the nitrates regulations of the same year. Amendments to these regulations were made in 2006 and 2007.

In terms of the 2009 nitrates regulations, following a comprehensive consultation process conducted by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, revisions were made by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on 26 March 2009 and came into effect on 31 March 2009. The revisions were developed by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for two main purposes. The first was to provide for stronger enforcement provisions and better farmyard management to comply with a European Court of Justice judgment in respect of the dangerous substances directive. The second reason was to provide a legal basis for the operation of a derogation from the nitrates directive granted to Ireland by the European Commission in 2007.

I emphasise the most recent revisions did not change anything fundamental in the regulations. The 2009 regulations are effectively the same as the regulations introduced in 2005 and 2006 with the addition of the revisions outlined. The main new features and changes in the revised regulations are as follows: stronger enforcement powers for local authorities; enhanced cross-reporting arrangements between local authorities and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the purposes of improving the transfer of information and improving efficiencies; new requirements for improved farmyard management; provisions relating to making an application to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for a derogation from the directive, if applicable; and a temporary exemption to allow an extension of time for the establishment of green cover following ploughing competitions. More detailed information on each of these points is included in the appendix.

To return briefly to the dangerous substances directive and the ECJ judgment to which I referred, in 2005 the European Court of Justice held that Ireland was non-compliant with the dangerous substances directive due to inadequate transposition and implementation. A range of measures have been or are being put in place in response to that judgment including new or strengthened controls on discharges from urban wastewater treatment plants, marine fin fish aquaculture installations and aerial fertilisation of forestry. That case is at the stage of "reasoned opinion" under Article 228 of the treaty. It has been at that status since March 2007.

One of the remaining outstanding matters in responding to that judgment was the need to strengthen the nitrates regulations. The judgment held, among other things, that agricultural installations are foreseeable sources of discharges, for example, of phosphorus to waters and should be subject to an authorisation system for the purposes of the dangerous substances directive. This would have amounted to a licensing regime for farms. As an alternative to the introduction of such an authorisation system for farms, Ireland and the European Commission agreed that the best way to meet the requirements of the judgment would be to modify the nitrates regulations to provide a higher level of protection for waters. This was achieved by putting in place the more specific requirements regarding the enforcement duties and improved farmyard management to which I referred.

The European Commission by decision dated 22 October 2007, granted a nitrates derogation requested by Ireland which allows farmers, subject to certain conditions, to operate at levels of land spreading of manure above the standard limit of 170 kg of nitrogen per hectare per annum but not exceeding 250 kg. This derogation is being operated on the ground by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Included in the most recent revisions to the regulations was a provision to give legal effect to this arrangement in Ireland and the requirements imposed by that derogation.

I hope this has been helpful in highlighting the main impact of the recent revisions by way of information for the committee. We would be happy to elaborate on any aspects of the revised regulations and to answer any questions members might have. I have colleagues here from our Department and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for that purpose.

Chairman

In 2005 when the nitrates directive was being implemented it was very difficult. I was very pleased at that time as Chairman of this committee to arrange a meeting with the Ministers for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government with the main farming organisation. From then on we had a very successful outcome. I understood from the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, that he had an agreement with the farming organisations and this committee that one body would do the inspections. In my county the big polluter is the county council, not the farmers. I am sure this is the case in many counties. Over the past four or five years there have been no fish kills that I can remember in my county or my neighbouring counties, and I am sure that applies in other counties. Many council officials would love to blame somebody other than themselves. In my two local towns of Kells and Oldcastle, the council has been brought to court on numerous occasions in recent years regarding polluting the rivers and streams. It is very unfair.

I met the Minister, Deputy Smith, on this issue and he said the duplication of on-farm inspections must be avoided from a common sense point of view and having regard to the minimisation of costs. To that end his Department and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government are finalising arrangements to ensure the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food cross-compliance inspections will meet the requirements of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government under the nitrates directive. I hope this will be resolved because it is very unfair to the farming community at this time.

Deputy Michael Creed

I welcome Mr. Allen and his colleagues from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

If one is farming now, whether in intensive pig or poultry production, dairying or tillage, a range of people can march onto one's holding under the guise of the nitrates directive or the Dangerous Substances Act. Farmers feel that the public service is empire building. I say this without meaning to be offensive and I make the point in respect of permanent as opposed to temporary Government. There is no rational sense behind the triplication of inspection regimes now in place to police the nitrates directive. Why is it that officials from three authorities, namely, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, local authorities and the Environmental Protection Agency are entitled to walk into a farmer's yard in the morning to carry out inspections with regard to this directive and the associated Dangerous Substances Act?

Concerning the relative dangers posed by phosphorus, for example, the compound dealt with under the Dangerous Substances Act, I ask the delegates to quantify the current risk assessment for the agricultural community as opposed to that which falls within their primary responsibility, namely, local authorities and their operation of sewage treatment plants. What is the capital allocation made by the Department this year to assist local authorities deal with the fact that most of the treatment facilities around the country do not have the required investment to extract phosphorus from their sewage treatment plants?

Farmers feel they are the soft touch. They feel it is easier to have a semblance of addressing the problem by what is being done to the agricultural community whereas the substantive risk is much higher from treatment plants around the country. Mallow and Fermoy, for example, two big towns in my own county, Cork, do not have phosphorus extraction capacities in their treatment plants. I am sure there are many more and that if one goes to smaller plants around the country, this situation is replicated and that most plants do not have this capacity. That seems to be a far higher risk than any posed by the agricultural community. What the delegates propose in respect of the nitrates directive is to add to the layer of entitlements to march in on farmers, unannounced.

The delegates should not get me or farmers wrong. Farmers are committed and their commitment is witnessed through their repeated investment in improving farmyard facilities to handle waste. They see their waste as a resource which, if handled properly, can have a financial dividend. As a consequence, they have invested billions of euro in this area, assisted by the State which invested most recently under the farm waste management scheme. We do not see the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government replicating that type of investment to save us from the risks of the dangerous substance to which the delegates referred, namely, phosphorus.

The primary concern for farmers is that they are seen as a soft touch and that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the agencies under it, including the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, are empire building, creating inspection jobs for the boys and persecuting farmers out of existence. The evidence that farmers are being put out of existence is present and the trend is in one direction. I do not say they have left farming exclusively because of environmental issues but that trend has been exacerbated and this additional layer is unwarranted.

I do not have a difficulty meeting the highest environmental standards, nor do farmers, but when an official goes into a farmer's yard to check up on cross-compliance issues the farmer wants the official to have the remit and authority to deal with all the associated issues. He does not want to be followed for several days afterwards — at the taxpayer's expense — by an official inspecting various aspects of the dangerous substances directive. I would like the witnesses to address those issues, please.

Chairman

I thank the Deputy. I will take about four members at a time if that is agreeable.

Deputy Seán Sherlock

How will the inspection regime work in practice? If I was a farmer, would I be visited by the environment section of the local authority, such as Cork County Council, by an EPA inspector, and by a Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food inspector, all of whom would inspect what I did in terms of the provisions in the directive? Also, who has primacy on the issue — the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government? How is it envisioned the action programmes will be devised and how will they work in practice? Will they be based on information garnered from individual inspections? It is difficult to understand how the provisions can be implemented, to be honest. What will be the cost to the Exchequer of their implementation? Will the cost be borne by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or by the local authorities? If local authorities will bear the cost, will they need to redeploy existing staff to carry out the inspections, given that there is an embargo on local authorities' taking on new staff?

I am not a scientist but a layman in this respect, but the objective of the nitrates directive is to reduce water pollution caused by nitrates and phosphorus from agricultural sources and to prevent further such pollution. Does it deal only with phosphorus from agricultural sources or does it also deal with other sources? The witness mentioned the dangerous substances directive. Is he saying pollution caused by phosphorus comes primarily from agricultural sources or are other dangerous substances encompassed within the ECJ judgment?

I represent Cork East and the towns of Mallow and Fermoy are within my constituency. Mallow is my home town. The wastewater treatment plant there is woefully inadequate and will not meet the needs of a town of that size. My understanding is that it has no phosphorus control or removal facility, but I ask the witnesses to clarify that. What is spent on phosphorus removal facilities? What percentage of wastewater treatment plants and sewage treatment plants do not have those facilities?

I return to my earlier question about the preparation and publication of the action programme. The regulations state that the Minister shall "prepare and publish not later than 30 June 2010 and every four years thereafter, a programme of measures [...] for the protection of waters against pollution from agriculture". What measures are being taken to prevent pollution from sources other than agriculture? Do they also fall within the remit of the dangerous substances directive? It seems that this duplication of effort will actually end up costing the Exchequer a lot more through the expending of resources and it will place an increased burden on those who are involved in agricultural production. I fail to see how the Department will be able to implement this regulation without expending massive resources and I ask for a comment.

Deputy Martin Ferris

I welcome the panel of experts. If there is one element which creates antagonism towards cohesion between farming and all the various bodies, it is the amount of duplication and doubling up of inspections and so forth. This is having an adverse effect and is causing anger and resentment, particularly among the agricultural and farming communities. The Chairman referred to local authorities as being the biggest polluters. I can speak authoritatively because where I live the most polluted river in Kerry is being polluted as a result of a lack of adequate waste management by the local authorities. Those involved in the agricultural sector have significant concerns regarding ploughing. I note the reference to temporary exemptions to allow an extension of time for establishment of green cover following ploughing. Those of us who grew up in that type of environment will know that the implementation of that regulation borders on the ridiculous, to be honest about it.

The presentation also mentions the strengthening of enforcement provisions. Is it the case that the current enforcement provisions regarding the farming community are not strong enough? What evidence is there of this when the indications we have as elected representatives is that they are heavy-handed? The presentation states that this regulation is designed to provide a legal basis for the operation of a derogation under the nitrates directive and I ask for an elaboration of this point. Is the delegation saying there is no legal basis for the current nitrates directive?

I do not think any member of the committee is in favour of contamination of our waters and we would do everything possible to ensure this does not happen. However, the regulation is being directed primarily at the farming sector and this is not fair as it should be directed elsewhere. For instance, local authorities are involved in the policing of this regulation when they themselves are effectively the biggest polluters.

I thank the delegation for the presentation. I have serious concerns with regard to the policing and enforcement of the regulation. If one is living in rural Ireland, the enforcement and the inspections are a daily occurrence for many.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

Most of us are in agreement on this subject. Farming must be the most over-regulated sector in this country. We now have another directive from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to bring in another army of inspectors to go out and inspect farmers. We already have regulations, cross-compliance and people visiting farmers on a regular basis. This will be another layer of bureaucracy and another inspection regime will be put in place to inspect farmers. I mean no disrespect to local authorities as I was a member of a local authority for 16 years before becoming a Member of the Dáil. However, it would be more in their line to inspect their own sewage treatment systems which do more harm to rivers as a result of phosphorus emissions than any farmer does. Over the past two years farmers have spent €2.5 billion, between grant aid and what they contribute, on farm waste management schemes to bring their professional business to a standard that is one of the highest in the world. I do not know why we need another inspection regime when the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials are capable of carrying out inspections. There was agreement between the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the farming bodies that there would be one group responsible for farmers. That is good enough. Another inspection regime would be a waste of taxpayers' money, especially in recessionary times.

On the regulations relating to slurry spreading, there is a closed period during the winter months when it is not permitted to spread slurry. That is acceptable in most cases but the fact that we have had to get a derogation on two or three occasions in recent years proves that it does not work here. Ireland is located on the Atlantic Ocean and comparing it to countries such as France, Spain, Italy or others and making one rule for everyone does not work. It is accepted that one cannot spread slurry at the wrong time. Instead of seeking derogation every year we should put a new regime in place, overseen by the local authorities, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Teagasc, under which spreading slurry would be allowed when the weather permitted.

The last matter I want to talk about is the directive regarding the ploughing of red ground in the fall. A directive that one cannot plough land in October and November sounds ridiculous to me, coming from a farming background and having been involved in tillage all my life. We were always told by the old people to turn the red ground, especially ley ground, down in the fall and that it would rot and could be tilled in the spring. Only spring barley and wheat were grown at that time. I know of several farmers who have been caught out over the years who ploughed land but, owing to the climate here, were not able to get in winter corn and had to wait until the spring for the weather to improve. According to the current regulations they were in breach of law. I do not know who is making up these rules in Europe but the regimes and directives do not add up in this country. I would like a comment on that. We should let common sense rule rather than directives and orders.

Mr. Damien Allen

I will try to deal with the various points made at a high level and then I will bring in some of my colleagues on specific points.

It is true to say that if one goes back to the nitrates action programme published in 2005 to which members of the committee have referred, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was identified as having a key role in carrying out and implementing the regulations. The same document acknowledges that the local authorities would have a lead role and they have always had a lead role in the protection of water and water quality under a range of legislation that predates the nitrates regulations, for example, the water pollution Acts. What one has is a complex situation where one has the local authorities being responsible for water quality and having clear responsibilities under legislation, including the nitrates regulations, and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food having its own responsibilities in relation to the single farm payment scheme and the cross-compliance inspections that are necessary to support that. That has its objectives also. There is quite a complex situation with both authorities having responsibilities under the law. I want to clarify that we are not talking about a new regime of inspections or a new army of inspectors. The local authorities have been doing this since 2005, as regards the nitrates regulations. In 2007, for example, in excess of 3,000 farm inspections were carried out by local authorities.

That said, it is acknowledged that while there might be two sets of regimes and more than two sets of regulations involved given that it is a complex area, there is undoubtedly scope for more efficiency. That is why we have been in discussions with our colleagues in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Deputy Seán Sherlock

What was the basis of the ECJ ruling, then, if the Department has been carrying out inspections since 2005?

Mr. Damien Allen

The ECJ judgment against Ireland was concerned with the dangerous substances directive. To answer a question put by Deputy Sherlock, it was not just in relation to agriculture but rather across a whole range of areas including forestry, aquaculture, agriculture and municipal plants. It applied right across the board. This was just one aspect we addressed in these revisions, but an important aspect, nonetheless. It was part of the whole package of measures we had to take to comply with the judgment.

I am going to ask my colleague, Mr. Pat Duggan to comment on the point raised by a couple of Deputies about municipal wastewater discharge plants and the phosphorus content of same and how that might impact. Before I do, however, some comments have been made as regards the impact arising from municipal wastewater plants and agriculture. The most recent report from the EPA, issued last November, on water quality in Ireland put such municipal plants as the primary source, particularly of serious pollution incidents. Agriculture, however, was second to municipal sources in terms of a risk or suspected cause of pollution, particularly in the moderate to slight category. I just have one figure in relation to polluted river sites. As regards those, in 38% of cases the cause was found to be municipal, compared to 31% from agriculture.

Deputy Andrew Doyle

Does that figure include estuaries or just rivers?

Mr. Damien Allen

That figure is just for rivers.

Deputy Andrew Doyle

The bulk of the potential industrial pollution is not measured in that.

Chairman

I do not want to allow supplementary questions at this stage, although a point of order will be all right.

Deputy Andrew Doyle

I am entitled to ask, Chairman.

Chairman

I do not want to allow supplementary questions at this stage, because it is not fair to other people who have to come in. Has Mr. Allen answered that question?

Mr. Damien Allen

Yes.

Mr. Pat Duggan

On this issue of urban wastewater raised by a number of speakers, it is important to understand in reference to the nitrates directive and what we are talking about here today that this is one measure decided on at EU level that member states have to implement. There is a whole range of other measures also in place which have to be implemented nationally, too. The first general point was the relative contribution of agriculture and urban wastewater and Mr. Allen has already answered that. By and large, if we take the EPA water quality results which are reported every few years, from about 3,200 river monitoring sites, in general urban wastewater is the principal contributor to the pollution of rivers in Ireland, with agriculture a close second. That is just a general picture. These are the two key issues we must address in Ireland if we want to manage and improve our water quality, as we are required to do in law. Among the nitrates regulations, the code of good agricultural practice is the principal mechanism whereby we address and manage agricultural pollution, which significantly affects Irish waters.

A question was asked on what was happening in the area of urban wastewater treatment plants. A number of other directives are relevant to that issue. The first and most important is the urban wastewater treatment directive, which is a sister directive of the nitrates directive. Its primary purpose is to address pollution from urban wastewater treatment plants. In addition, the dangerous substances directive is an important EU control on pollution from municipal wastewater treatment plants.

There was a question on the control of phosphorus discharges from urban wastewater treatment plants. The urban wastewater treatment directive requires that, where there is a discharge from an urban agglomeration with a population in excess of 10,000 people, into a sensitive area susceptible to eutrophication or to the impact of nutrient discharges, nutrient removal measures must be put in place. Discharges of nutrients from urban wastewater treatment plants are not ignored in law.

The other issue relates to how well discharges are controlled. The EU court, in its judgment on dangerous substances, also found against Ireland on the adequacy of its controls on urban wastewater discharges. We were required to put in place a new set of regulations, the wastewater authorisation regulations 2007, which require all discharges from urban wastewater treatment plants to be licensed and regulated by the EPA. The EPA is the control authority, it sets emission limits on the discharges from urban wastewater treatment plants and can prosecute local authorities for non-compliance. The regulations came into effect in 2007 and are being phased in over a number of years. I do not know how many wastewater licences have been issued by the EPA to date but by the end of this year all discharges from urban wastewater treatment plants must be subject to a licensing regime operated by the EPA. There is a parallel control system which sets limits on local authority discharges, managed by an independent agency which can prosecute local authorities, county managers and directors of services where they are negligent in the performance of their duties.

I do not know whether phosphorus removal has taken place at Mallow. In law, if the population is greater than 10,000 and there is discharge into a sensitive area, there is a requirement for nutrient removal.

Deputy Michael Creed

What is the definition of a "sensitive area"?

Mr. Pat Duggan

A sensitive area is one which is susceptible to eutrophication, such as a river, part of a river, an estuary or a bay. There have been a number of regulations since 1994, including one in 2001, and we are carrying out a further review of water quality data to evaluate the susceptibility of waters to the effect of eutrophication, with a view to deciding whether they should be designated as sensitive in the national regulations.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

Are all rivers sensitive areas?

Mr. Pat Duggan

No. I am unsure of the exact number but currently there are of the order of 35 such areas, including a number of estuaries, principally on the east and south-east coast, and a number of rivers and lakes designated as sensitive.

Deputy Michael Creed

Could a local authority discharge into anything else without meeting the standards?

Mr. Pat Duggan

Where a local authority wastewater treatment plant is discharging within the catchment of a designated sensitive area, that wastewater treatment plant must meet nutrient reduction limits prescribed in national regulations and the requirement is enforceable by the EPA.

Deputy Michael Creed

It appears, therefore, that vis-à-vis the farming community and municipal discharges there is not a level playing field. Regardless of where he operates, a farmer must meet the highest standard of operations, whereas a local authority, depending on location and whether it is discharging into a sensitive area, can discharge a more toxic pollutant into certain locations.

Mr. Pat Duggan

There are two separate regimes. Let us consider the case of a town such as Mallow or a city such as Waterford. This is the reality of how things work. One must discharge wastewater and ensure one's actions do not cause environmental damage and that the control mechanisms are in place. The requirement and approach to agriculture are different. There is no system of authorising or licensing discharges into water. Essentially, the nitrates regulations require that farmers adhere to good agricultural practice and that they limit the amount of nutrients they apply to land consistent with crop needs. That is to say that they adhere to good environmental practice and good agronomic practice — it saves the farmer money. They are also required to manage waste in the same way as any other producer of waste. They must contain it during the winter period and apply it and recover the nutrients from the water during periods of growth. It is essentially a system of ensuring efficient recovery of nutrients from agriculture waste and the efficient application to land of nutrients which meets environmental and agronomic needs.

Chairman

Does anyone else wish to contribute?

Mr. Damien Allen

A Deputy raised the matter of dates of slurry spreading. The dates are effectively set by the nitrates directive and the national regulations reflect what is in the directive. The scope for allowing slurry to be spread during the closed period is not available in law. There were two extraordinary summers last year and the year before and the Minister granted extensions to allow for slurry spreading to overcome the problems which arose from those extraordinary summers and the adverse weather. However, in terms of what we can do about it, our hands are tied and we are really regulated by what is in the directive in terms of a closed period.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

If we have inclement weather for the next ten years such that it is not suitable to spread slurry during the summer we will be left with going back to the EU seeking derogation every year. Are our circumstances not different to those of other mainland countries in the EU given the weather we have in general? We will have to go back every year continuously seeking derogation. In 2015 we will still be going back seeking derogation to get our slurry spread.

Mr. Damien Allen

That is correct. It varies from member state to member state according to what the general climate should be. It was on the basis of historical climate that November and December were chosen as the closed dates for Ireland because that was most appropriate for Ireland. The more recent summers bucked that trend.

Chairman

We have agreed that we would discuss this at the earliest opportunity and maybe we would seek a meeting with the Commissioner on this issue because it has been a serious problem, particularly last year.

Mr. Tom Quinlivan

Regarding storage, last year was an unusual year. Many farmers were building storage in the process of complying with the requirements of the regulations. Farmers will spend €2 billion on manure storage. Last year the weather was unusual. Depending on the area, the regulations required that farmers have 16, 18, 20 or 22 week storage. Farmers will have adequate storage and one should not make rules on the basis of a difficult and unusual year.

A member mentioned that it was traditional practice when sowing and spraying crops to plough in the autumn, allow the winter weather to break down the soil and create a better seed bed for sowing in the spring. While that is good agronomic practice, it is not good environmental practice. Ploughing turns over and buries vegetation. That organic matter breaks down through a process known as mineralisation. Nitrates are released and if it is raining these nitrates can be leached out of the soil and lost to water. When the action programme was being put together in 2005, rivers in tillage areas showed elevated nitrate levels. While measures were in place regarding tillage farmers, such as maximum fertilisation rates and using nutrients in accordance with crop requirements, it was deemed appropriate to put something extra in place. That extra element is the requirement for green cover.

The objective of green cover is to have a crop in place as quickly as possible after ploughing to take up the nitrates released. The basis for the six-week period for having green cover was an allowance of three weeks to get the crop in and, in the case of cereals, one would hope for emergence within another three weeks. This would minimise the loss of nitrates.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

Would that stand for the argument that if one sprays the ground before ploughing and kills off that green cover, these nitrates do not occur and are not released to damage the water?

Mr. Tom Quinlivan

When a total herbicide such as Roundup is used, the vegetation dies and the organic matter breaks down releasing nitrates. Depending on the time of year and if rainfall is heavy, nitrates could be lost to groundwater and rivers, etc.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

A tillage farmer could be caught in a situation, through no fault of his or her own, due to the weather. What if a farmer ploughs land and hopes to get green cover crops for the winter in within the six weeks Mr. Quinlivan mentioned, but due to the weather, which has happened over the last two or three years, cannot get the crops in? Will that farmer be fined under these regulations and be in trouble because, through no fault of his or her own, he reddens the ground and cannot get in his or her crop? He or she will sow in the spring when the weather permits. What is his or her situation?

Deputy Michael Creed

Europewide we are dealing with the same nitrates directive. However, neighbouring jurisdictions have taken a different, more farmer-friendly and, people would argue, equally environmentally beneficial approach to the directive. In Northern Ireland, farmers are given three options with regard to tillage land and the levels of nitrogen permitted to be spread: the harvest stubble can remain on the land; the land can be sown with a crop that takes up nitrogen from the soil; or the land can be left with a rough surface. There is a different interpretation.

Farmers feel that this measure puts them at an unfair disadvantage, relative to their capacity to get a yield. Why is the same nitrates directive interpreted in different ways here? We feel — farmers certainly feel — that it is not interpreted in a manner that gives farmers an opportunity to manage their operation to the most efficient economic standards possible, while protecting the environment.

Mr. Tom Quinlivan

The Deputy is right about it being the same directive. Green cover was an optional measure in the directive. At the time in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, we were looking at elevated levels of nitrates in tillage areas. Action programmes must be agreed with the Commission and that was deemed an appropriate measure with regard to the problem we were addressing in Ireland.

In Northern Ireland, the proportion of tillage is much lower and therefore is not as big a factor. When one moves further afield, there are climates and temperatures. In Sweden, for example, the temperatures in winter are so cold that no mineralisation takes place, there is no release of nitrates, and there is not the same requirement in respect of green cover. In Ireland, however, grass grows throughout the year, if at a slow pace through the winter period. We made this case to the Commission with regard to the derogation and because of our mild climate, it was deemed appropriate that we should have an additional measure in the case of tillage farming.

Deputy Michael Creed

We take a far more restrictive approach.

Mr. Tom Quinlivan

I draw the Deputy's attention to the last consultation that took place in the UK prior to introduction. The Deputy should read what it said with regard to green cover. In the draft that went out for consultation, the UK authorities intended to look for green cover but there were a large number of objections. The outcome was that DEFRA stated that although it would not introduce the measure on that occasion, if the farming community did not come back with an alternative action the measure would be introduced in the subsequent action programme in the UK.

Deputy Michael Creed

We are not dealing exclusively with the levels of nitrogen application. We take a much lower threshold than the UK does.

Mr. Tom Quinlivan

The maximum rates as tabled in our regulations are based on recommendations by Teagasc, and likewise the UK rates are based on the advisory services' recommendations.

Deputy Andrew Doyle

I will start on that point, if I may. Have the delegates looked at the overall environmental efficiency of this rule? When one considers that lower yields are an end product there is, in consequence, more input. This has an environmental impact, for example, in ploughing, tilling and sowing a crop that has not had the chance to break down over the winter. How much extra diesel is used? That is a very simple question. Are the delegates prepared to revisit this measure and assess it? Everybody else present has made arguments about why it is seen as not being sensible.

The same thing applies to slurry spreading. Technically, a farmer could spread slurry on 16 January 2009 but not on 16 December 2008. Mr. Duggan made the point that the idea behind the nitrates directive is that periods of growth are used to take up nutrients left in the ground and that does not apply during periods when nothing grows. However, why do the prevailing weather conditions not play a bigger role? There have to be penalties when there are breaches, but what happens if a prevailing weather condition means there is a growth pattern at a particular time? That is what happened with the derogations that allowed slurry spreading in the past two autumns. That was nothing to do with the 22-week or 16-week capacity. No matter what capacity someone had, if they were waiting to put slurry on the ground after either silage or tillage, they could not do it. They would have been reckless to do it from the environmental point of view, apart from anything else.

On the new measures, I note there is a reference to "enhanced cross-reporting arrangements to improve efficiencies". The code of good farming practice, REPS, cross-compliance and the farm waste management scheme were all put in place with the nitrates directive measures in mind to enable farmers to operate. Given that local authorities have duties in relation to water pollution and that farmers want to be efficient, is it not good enough to say that if cross-compliance, REPS and other such measures are working as they should, it should be easy to deal with the matter? That is how efficiency is achieved. Another layer of bureaucracy is being introduced. What can it achieve that the Department of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries cannot achieve by carrying out its function — as it is meant to, and as it does? There is one departmental official for every 30 farmers. If the Department cannot achieve a successful result with that complement of staff, how can we expect another layer of inspections to achieve it? The sector is already well monitored and inspected.

No one is talking about anything other than achieving a common sense approach. Mr. Allen spent the first part of his presentation outlining the nitrates directive, but that is a given. The directives are accepted. Calendar farming should be revisited, but it is ridiculous to say that to achieve efficiency we need another layer of bureaucracy to carry out inspections.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

My understanding from what I have been told by farmers who have been in the business for quite a while is that when the ground establishes itself and this green cover is there it can be very serious at times and it can grow very quickly. It needs to be sprayed at least twice a month to kill off that cover. That being the case, I wonder is it worse to spray it, or for nitrates to be produced by the cover? I hope the witnesses will tell me the answer.

We do not claim to be experts, but we come from farming backgrounds and we deal every day with people involved in farming. On the main issue, my understanding, which I think is also the experience of all of us who know anything about farming, is that fewer people are involved in farming, yet there are more people inspecting their activities. Unfortunately, at a time when billions of euro have been spent on upgrading storage facilities for slurry and for farming in general, we have all these extra people involved in inspecting farmers' activities. Is it correct to say that it has been established that the local authorities themselves are the biggest offenders with regard to pollution?

Mr. Damien Allen

That local authorities are the biggest——

Chairman

We will take questions from members first and questions will be answered subsequently.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

Farming is the second biggest offender. If local authorities are the biggest offenders it is strange then that they are the people appointed to inspect farmers. This does not sound right to me.

The delegation stated that farming was second on the list of offenders. Was this the case before the billions of euro were spent in the last year in order to address areas of pollution from agricultural activities? When were those figures calculated? Farmers themselves dug deep into their pockets in order to match funding for this work. They now find that after spending all that money, they end up with more inspections. I need a common-sense answer on this. Does it sound right to the delegation because it definitely does not sound right to me?

Another speaker asked who was paying for this. I know it is the farmer who will by paying at the end of the day and this has been the case down through the years with every regulation and rule. It is about time that common sense was applied. I want a message to go out from this committee that we want this to be examined again. This situation cannot be allowed to continue and I will be raising the issue at every possible opportunity.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

If the banks had been regulated with even 10% of the regulation which applies to agriculture, we would not have a banking problem. This is little more than a PR exercise. Who initiated the consultation process conducted by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? I imagine it was the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. This is quite ironic given that the Minister and the people in his constituency cannot go swimming and cannot stand the stench around Poolbeg and Ringsend, yet he is the man who is pushing this initiative.

Mr. Duggan stated that the EPA can prosecute a director of services in a local authority but I would contest that statement. Where a director of services in a local authority has applied to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for funding to improve and upgrade wastewater facilities in his or her local authority and has not received funding, I cannot see how the EPA can directly prosecute that director. I hope the delegation could suggest to the Minister that the funding should be directed towards the local authorities. A total of €2 billion has been invested in manure storage but how much will be granted to the local authorities this year for upgrading and provision of wastewater treatment facilities? I hope the local authorities will be given the funding. It has been the practice until recently whereby a cluster of houses would be granted a discharge licence to the nearest river. Is this practice still in operation?

Mr. Allen has stated that since 2005 local authorities have conducted 3,000 inspections. How many inspections has the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food conducted? I understand Article 30(5) of the regulations is to be amended by substituting the word "shall" for the word "may" to provide that local authorities shall furnish the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and such other persons as it considers appropriate, with inspection reports where non-compliance has been detected. As local authorities will send their findings to the Department and other appropriate bodies such as the EPA, we will now have three layers to do one job. I am surprised Mr. Quinlivan was the only official from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to comment. Is the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food being made to toe the line or is it on board in this regard? Given the information we have received in Mr. Allen's presentation to the committee, I see it as a PR exercise. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and its officials have been doing a very good job. Now the Minister has decided, keeping in mind what is happening in his constituency and given that €2 billion has been invested in manure storage facilities, to add a further layer of inspection. It beggars belief. I could give examples — I will not name the rivers — in my constituency where there are very high phosphorus readings, yet there is little or no agricultural activity in these areas. I can identify two towns where massive development took place with no infrastructure for sewage treatment. In another town in my constituency the Department has decided that water cannot be extracted from a river because of the presence of some type of mussel. It has suggested, however, that water for human consumption be taken from another river into which water from a wastewater treatment unit is being discharged. We have had algal bloom on the Lakes of Killarney on a few occasions. If one reads between the lines in terms of what happened and why, we are pointing the finger in the wrong direction in trying to lay the blame solely on the agriculture sector.

Deputy Eamon Scanlon

Having discussed the nitrates directive on a number of occasions at the committee in the past 12 months it was my understanding inspections would be carried out by officials from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I may be wrong, but if I am not, why was it decided to give this responsibility to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government? Who sought the change? In terms of cost, I am aware that a local authority has hired a consultancy firm from the south to carry out inspections on its behalf. Who will be responsible for the cost? From my experience as a member of a local authority for many years I can inform the committee that it will be expensive.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan

I apologise for being late. I was engaged in other matters appertaining to my constituency.

I am not impressed by the responses this morning of the officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Do they now doubt the ability of the inspectorate of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to carry out inspections on farms throughout the country? That inspectorate has carried out good work for the past 20 years or so. Is it coming to the point when another army of inspectors is to be put in place and in the event will it be known as "Dad's Army"?

It is clear to me that the farming community is already bedevilled by red tape and bureaucracy. The farmers have done their absolute best, spending €1.5 billion of their own money in addition to €1 billion in grant aid upgrading farmyard and farm buildings to comply with the highest environmental standards — to meet the onerous requirements of the nitrates regulations.

Are the officials here the doubting Thomases of this joint scheme undertaken voluntarily by farmers to ensure compliance with the regulations laid down by European Commission? It is clear that this is some smoke screen by the current Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government as stated by Deputy Sheahan my colleague from Kerry South, to cover up the way that Poolbeg and Dublin Bay is contaminated. I should like the Minister to tour the constituency of Cork South-West, where I will gladly point out to him the many small towns and villages in that sprawling peninsula that possess only inadequate sewerage schemes and no treatment plants, with raw sewage being pumped out into the harbours and bays. Wherein lie the regulations there? Why is there a need to double up on inspectors? The county councils throughout Ireland do not possess a euro to fill a pothole or cut a hedge. Will the ratepayers have to pay for the new inspectorate? The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government officials should realise they are treading on a time bomb, as far as agriculture is concerned. It is the last straw that breaks the camel's back and farmers are getting sick and tired and up to the gills with not one, but three layers of bureaucracy.

Surely any farmer who has been in the REPS 3 and REPS 4 schemes will have been visited and stringent investigations carried out as regards all those matters the officials are now trying to camouflage. Does the Government not have the money to pay the REPS 4 scheme to the farmers? It has already been cut by 17% in the last budget. If there is another budget before Christmas, this could mean a further cut of 17%. This is what is going on and the truth, with common sense, must prevail. For God's sake, stop crucifying the farmers. They are not the culprits. It has been clearly spelt out here today that rural water quality is of a high standard, and improving. The EPA report on water quality published in 2007 shows farmers have contributed to significant improvements in water quality with almost 92% of lakes in the country classified as unpolluted. That is something of which we can be proud from the point of view of the farmer. The delegation can rest assured that farmers are not polluting our waters. Some 85% of fish kill comes from non-agricultural sources. That is the area the delegation should target and where it should try to improve the standard such that it is acceptable to every section of the community. There is no excuse for this new layer of Government bureaucracy that puts a totally unnecessary burden on farmers and wastes taxpayers' money.

My experience of the former Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Dick Roche, was good. I found him to be a competent Minister capable of managing his Department while the nitrates regulations were under discussion. In talks with the Irish Farmers Association he agreed the key role should remain with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as set out in section 3 of the nitrates action plan. Let common sense prevail and do not allow the farming community to become extinct. They are sick and tired of the way things are managed. The farm retirement scheme was abandoned in the second last budget and the farm installation grant was abandoned. How can the farming community commit itself to the welfare and benefit of the environment when it is not interfering with it in terms of the relative percentage? The big industrialists throughout the country have gone after reaping their harvest from the Exchequer. They shipped out, went to the far east for cheap labour and left us with white elephants throughout the country. The delegations should listen to common sense, return to their respective Departments and inform them the farming community cannot bear any further burden. The time has come for common sense to prevail. I hope if this comes to vote in the Dáil the Ministers will——

Chairman

The Deputy need not worry as there will be no vote on this today.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan

There will be no vote today but I guarantee there will be a vote before it becomes law. We will seek help from my three colleagues who are absolutely——

Chairman

Please address comments through the Chair and finish up.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan

I appeal for their contribution when it comes before the Dáil. Do not ratify the death knell for the farming community.

Chairman

Deputy Sherlock may ask a few very brief supplementary questions.

Deputy Seán Sherlock

It is important to give time to the subject.

Chairman

Will I allow the delegation to answer and then allow supplementary questions?

Deputy Seán Sherlock

I refer to the inspections regime. The statutory instrument confers fairly extensive powers on the Garda, local authorities and statutory bodies in terms of entering a farm for the purposes of the regulation. Mr. Allen stated that approximately 3,200 inspections were carried out since 2005——

Mr. Damien Allen

That figure is for 2007.

Deputy Seán Sherlock

In light of the regulation which has been in place since 31 March how many inspections does the delegation envisage will be carried out? Who will have the primary objective in this regard? Will it be the local authority, the EPA or the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? If it is to be a local authority, will it be granted increased resources to enable it to do this work and, if so, what figure has been put aside for this purpose? I am trying to get at the cost to the Exchequer as a result of this statutory instrument in terms of an inspection regime. Will it ultimately lead to improved water quality? If I return to the distinction Mr. Duggan makes between the urban wastewater treatment directive and the dangerous substances directive, and take the improvements made in agricultural practices, the Department, through lack of resources provided for local authorities, is the main culprit in low water quality. That is the central point. I do not understand why we are adding another layer of bureaucracy when we should streamline the bureaucratic function. I would like to know the specifics on the inspections regime, how many will be carried out over the next 12 months, by whom and at what cost to the Exchequer. I would like very specific answers. If the witnesses cannot answer those questions today perhaps they could revert to me.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

What expertise will the Department extract from the local authorities to carry out these inspections? I doubt they will be the stop and go men on the road. In Kerry County Council the environmental department is up to its tonsils with work. Who within the local authorities will have responsibility for these inspections?

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I want to raise a point on slurry spreading. Farmers have spent large amounts of money on slurry storage and they cannot spread it when it is of advantage to them. No farmer will spend that much money on storing slurry and just put it out when the calendar specifies. It must be done when the weather is right and cannot be done any other way. The sooner we get that message to those with authority and who can change it——

Chairman

As I said, we will try to arrange a meeting with the Commissioner or his officials. The regulation is there, unfortunately, and these people cannot change it.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

It is vital that is done. It is of major importance to farmers because of its value and the amount of money they have spent on storing it.

Deputy Michael Creed

Deputy Christy O'Sullivan is on the right track. The State's interpretation of the legislation has us farming by calendar and it is feasible for the State to make a rational case to change that. That is what we are asking for. I would like to hear the rationale for the current approach because to most farmers it makes no sense. One can have a wet May, June or July and have perfect weather for such activities in November, December or January. It is not always the case, but a diktat on calendar months does not work and should be revisited.

I have one other question for Mr. Allen. We are dealing with the nitrates directive and the European Court of Justice findings on dangerous substances, and so on. That court judgment was in 2005 and it is now 2009, four years later. In the interim we have had the initial benefits of the regulations — whether people agreed with them — introduced under the nitrates regulations such as buffer zones. To what extent are we bolstering something that may have addressed the findings of the Court of Justice already because we are reacting in 2009 to issues that were ruled on in 2005, four years later? In the interim we have had the benefits of the nitrates directive as introduced.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

On the 31% of river pollution coming from agriculture and on farmers being the second biggest polluters in the country, have we a breakdown on that? Is it caused by natural run-off or slurry getting into rivers? There is natural run-off. When we plough red ground, there is a natural run-off into rivers.

On behalf of tillage farmers, I asked a question which was not answered. Is there leeway, or can the Minister allow a derogation for a person who is caught, who has ploughed his or her ground but cannot plant a crop because of weather conditions? I see, for example, that there is a derogation in respect of the National Ploughing Championships. Can something be done for tillage farmers who, through no fault of their own, cannot plant a green crop?

Chairman

I have a question. If I understood Mr. Duggan correctly, he said that under the law managers or directors of services could be held personally responsible for pollution caused by treatment plants. Can he ever see this happening? As a member of a local authority for many years, I cannot and do not believe any of us will ever see a county manager or director of services being held responsible for something of that nature.

Does Mr. Allen wish to answer first?

Mr. Damien Allen

On the case involving dangerous substances and the point made about the judgment issued in June 2005, that is true but it is also true that technically the case is still open. The practice is that cases are not closed until a member state has addressed all the points raised in the relevant judgment. Ireland has addressed many of the points raised in the judgment in question. The revisions were part of that package of responses and we expect to deal with the final outstanding elements in the next couple of months.

On the level of expertise within local authorities, I again make the point that local authorities have had for many years an inspection function. They have expertise in the area of water protection and pollution which has been part of their remit for many years, which even predates the nitrates regulations. We are not, therefore, talking about the roll-out of a new force of inspectors. They are already in place and the ones who made the inspections in 2007. I gave it as an example of the effort made that year. I do not have the figure for the number of planned inspections in 2009 but in 2008 the number was 5,000 which gives an idea of the scale involved, although I do not know what the outturn was. Sometimes the outturn does not match the number of planned inspections. However, each local authority is required to draw up plans within a framework provided by the EPA covering inspections planned the following year in a host of areas, including water, waste and other services in respect of which local authorities have competence. However, there are figures available. Over 3,000 inspections were made in 2007, while 5,000 were planned to be made in 2008. I can obtain the outturn figures, with the figure for planned inspections this year, which I shall pass on to the Deputy. The statistics given in the most recent water quality report published by the EPA last November were for a three-year monitoring period between 2004 and 2006. That is the time period to which we referred.

I ask my colleagues in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to respond to some of the questions raised in respect of the numbers of REPS and single farm payment scheme inspections and their relevance to the nitrates regulations.

Mr. Paul Dillon

To put the matter in context, Deputy Doyle mentioned that the nitrates regulations were a given but so also is cross-compliance from which we cannot get away. Every year, large sums of money are paid out to Irish farmers under various schemes. Under the single payment scheme, for example, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pays out €1.3 billion every year. That is funded by the European Commission; all the money comes from Brussels. If we do not cross-comply, we would risk not getting that money back. Under the REPS, we pay out perhaps €350 million a year, and under the disadvantaged area scheme, we pay out €270 million a year. All that money is subject to cross-compliance regulations and would be at risk if we did not cross-comply. That system operates independently of the statutory instrument on the nitrates regulations.

Deputy Andrew Doyle

How does it operate independently? Good practice in farming surely has an impact on the nitrates directives. With respect, one cannot say that is a separate matter.

Chairman

Allow Mr. Dillon to answer the question.

Mr. Paul Dillon

The point is that we are obliged to carry out cross-compliance inspections.

Deputy Andrew Doyle

I have no argument with that.

Mr. Paul Dillon

The other point is that huge amounts of money are at risk if the inspections are not carried out properly. Farmers have invested large sums of money in storage facilities, and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has paid out €548 million in grants to those farmers — it will probably end up paying out €1 billion — under the farm waste management scheme. That is all to do with cross-compliance and nitrates. I was about to make the point that all those matters go together. They are given.

I was asked how many inspections we have carried out. We carried out 1,400 cross-compliance inspections last year. Different EU regulations require us to carry out different numbers of inspections. We are required to inspect a minimum of 1% of farmers under cross-compliance, and we have to inspect 5% of cattle farmers who apply to the single payment scheme. For REPS, we are required to do non-farm inspections of 5% of farmers. There are different percentages for different schemes.

The aim of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which has been agreed with the farm bodies and restated several times, has always been to integrate the different inspections as far as possible to minimise the number of times the inspectors go to farms. As the Chairman said at the beginning, the aims of the Minister, Deputy Smith, are to cut down on duplication, to take a common sense approach and to minimise costs. That goes back to what Deputy Sheahan said. That is the Department's role and its aim in carrying out the inspection regime.

It has been said that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is kept in line by the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, but it is not just a question of doing what that Department says. It is important to understand that, every year, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has to explain its actions to the European Commission and account for all the money we get from it, so there is a much bigger job to be done.

Mr. Tom Quinlivan

On the tillage question that Deputies O'Sullivan and Aylward raised, the difficulty is that the green cover requirements are being overstated. In practice, when farmers put in winter crops, particularly in difficult weather conditions, they plough and sow the crop immediately — on the same day — using a one-pass system. Spring crops such as spring barley are sown in March or April. If a farmer wants to plough early, he or she can plough after 15 January with no requirements under the green cover rules. A significant amount of weathering will take place after that.

What we heard about spraying is correct for lush crops, which usually require more fungicides, but the question is more what happens when crops are sown. In the winter, the aim is not to have an over-lush crop, because otherwise the farmer will run into disease problems and perhaps even lodging problems. In many cases, such problems are due to putting a crop in ground that is too rich or sowing too early — such as sowing a winter crop in October rather than November — rather than due to green cover requirements.

Deputy Aylward mentioned a derogation with regard to green cover. There is provision for ploughing competitions but there is a difficulty with ploughing competitions, particularly the National Ploughing Championships which are planned 12 months in advance. Likewise, local ploughing competitions take place on a particular day and there is nothing that can be done about when the ploughing is going to take place. If the weather forecast is poor, a farmer will not plough. With regard to winter crops and particularly if the weather is difficult, the farmer's objective will be to plough and sow on the same day.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

On that point and with reference to spraying, the delegation is talking about ploughing and sowing early. The farmer is not allowed to spray ground before ploughing it. What is the situation with using a spray?

Mr. Tom Quinlivan

With regard to the use of Roundup or any total herbicide, one has six weeks to get green cover established.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

This is causing a problem. There can be a huge amount of growth in six weeks. I am talking about getting the ground sprayed as soon as possible after a crop is cut and that it is ploughed in. That is the problem with a huge amount of growth at that particular time, and this is causing significant problems for farmers. It may be something that can be looked at. I am just trying to highlight the problem it is causing and asking whether anything can be done about it.

Mr. Tom Quinlivan

Spraying is a separate issue. Most of the questions related to ploughing but the spraying of total herbicide is a different situation. If one is using something like Roundup post-harvest, the solution is to give the field a light run of a harrow or something to get rid of annual weeds.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

It is crazy to let that happen without any need for it. It is an expense to the farmer that should not arise as it serves no purpose. If the farmer is allowed spray for weeds immediately after cutting the crop and turn the soil over, that should be the answer to it. This would avoid the situation the delegation referred to of nitrates created by the green cover being turned over.

Chairman

The delegation could come back to Deputy O'Sullivan on that issue.

Mr. Pat Duggan

I want to make a point on that issue of green cover but I do not want to get into the detail of it because I am not expert in that area. On the generalities of this matter, I remind the committee of the reason we have these nitrates regulations and these controls. One of the deciding factors was the fact that quite a large number of our estuaries and bays to the east and south east of the country are eutrophic, polluted by nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Many of our rivers in the south-east region of the country have very high levels of nitrate. Much of our ground water in the south east of the country around Carlow and areas like that, have high nitrate levels. These are principally areas of high tillage.

If we cannot control the loss of nutrients, nitrates, from these lands, or we do not make an attempt to address this, we are not going to address the problem of pollution of our estuaries and bays or rivers in the south east of the country. We have to go back to the European Commission, as does every other member state, as part of our obligations under the nitrates directive. We have to report on progress. Every four years, just like every other member state, in 2010 we have to go back and make a further application to retain the derogation we have obtained for Irish dairy farmers to allow them operate at 250 kg/n higher stocking rate than is permitted by the directive. If we do not address those water quality issues and fudge, pretending we do not have problems then we will put that derogation at risk and run the risk of having to implement more stringent regulations under the nitrates directive. Those are the risks associated with this. In the context of looking at the details and deciding what is right or wrong, we must examine the bigger picture, too. There is a risk to Irish farmers in not addressing problems.

Chairman

Are there any other questions?

Deputy Bobby Aylward

Is there a breakdown of the 31% pollution figure as regards agriculture?

Mr. Pat Duggan

The EPA has 3,200 monitoring sites which it surveys every two or three years. It has a number of personnel who do those surveys. Those scientists make observations at each site and make a judgment on what they see as the principal cause of pollution, as applicable. They publish this data in their water quality reports and indicate whether the pollution is caused by urban wastewater or agriculture. I have never seen a more detailed breakdown published on whether the pollution is run-off from a farmyard or from land. The EPA may have data and views on that, but I have not seen them and such data is not published in the general national water quality reports.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

I just wanted to know whether it was just natural——

Chairman

I am not allowing supplementary questions. Deputy Sheehan will be followed by Deputy Doyle.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

Am I mistaken in thinking, during the debate on the nitrates directive, that the inspections would be carried out by officials from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?

Deputy P. J. Sheehan

I would like to ascertain who will reimburse the county councils for recruiting this army of inspectors again. Does the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government have any plans in that regard because the councils are cash-strapped, without a penny for anything?

Chairman

As far as I know, no extra staff is being taken on, anywhere.

Deputy Andrew Doyle

I believe Mr. Duggan referred to a question I asked earlier with regard to resubmission to the EU every four years. He mentioned high incidences of nitrogen in rivers in areas of high tillage. I asked whether the Department is prepared to revisit this, because perhaps the regime could be improved by having weather indicator factors as the guideline as opposed to pure calendars. That is the point I asked about.

I see here from the EPA and OECD that in 1993 all fish kills attributed to agriculture were 60% of the total. By 2006, which pre-dates the nitrates directive, that had reduced to 15%. I submit that this is a fair indicator of the level of improvement that has taken place in water. I would argue that much of the reason for serious fish kills down through the years emanated from advice given in the early days to intensify, before people realised the consequences — just like smoking cigarettes — when the brakes had to be applied. What I was fundamentally interested in was the efficiency question. I was not arguing about inspections on foot of the schemes. I question, however, why a cap is in place, in the first place, which is a bigger question, although not for today.

The point is that given the level of inspections and with proper cross-reporting how can the installation of a new layer of inspection bureaucracy "improve efficiencies", as it says here, if there is a proper level of communication between the two Departments? If the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government identifies a problem in a river, it should be able to communicate that to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and ask whether inspections have been carried out on the farms in the area, if it believes this is the source of the problem. This is the way it should work and that, more of less, was the nature of the agreement which was in place.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

There should be cross-compliance on the farms.

Deputy Michael Creed

I raised several points and I am unsure if I have received any reassurance. I refer to the triplication of inspection regimes or authorities in the agriculture sector. There is more than one inspection for many farmers depending on the schemes in which they are involved, which is irritating. Undoubtedly given today's climate, the issue could be streamlined and greater efficiency could be introduced from a financial point of view to make the tax euro go further. I have not heard anything today that leads me to believe there is awareness either in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the EPA, which is not represented here, that this is a live issue which must be examined.

There are inspections under the REP schemes, which is a related issue, and those involved could carry out nitrate compliance checks. This is not rocket science. There could be a single agency or individual in a position to carry out these inspections. That would deliver the objectives. No one argues for a shoddy system and I appreciate the point made by Mr. Dillon concerning what is at stake in respect of the schemes and their funding. However, a bureaucracy is being built and we are witnessing the emergence of two bureaucracies which in many respects have the same objectives but do not seem to co-operate at ground level. When the EPA is factored in, the consequence is that more than enough inspectors have a right to arrive at a farm gate in any calendar year. There does not seem to be any acknowledgement that this is an issue or any willingness to face up to it.

We have raised the issue of calendar farming, but we are dancing around it. I have not heard anything to suggest it has been properly addressed. We do not claim all the wisdom or common sense but it is certain that in the closed period there are times when it should be feasible to have permission and it has been granted. The fact that derogations have been granted proves to me that the system of calendar farming is not the way to proceed and this should be re-examined entirely.

Chairman

It was stated that there would not be any extra inspectors. It was brought to my notice that some county councils have employed consultancy firms to oversee the inspections related to the nitrates directive. Do the departmental officials, especially those from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, have any knowledge of this?

Mr. Damien Allen

Yes. I know of one county council that employed consultants to carry out checks. The regulations provide for this and a county council may carry out the inspections or may cause the inspections to be carried out. This leaves it open to them to contract the work if that suits their circumstances.

Chairman

There is one such county council?

Mr. Damien Allen

I know of one.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

In this day and age we are trying to cut back on expenditure. Every county council is cutting back and leaving off part-time staff. It is terrible to see that some county councils are hiring staff or consultants to inspect for something that has already been done, as has been pointed out by every speaker here. It is crazy.

Mr. Damien Allen

That took place in 2007, which is the year for which I have statistics.

Chairman

Is it the case that this took place in 2007 not 2009? My understanding is that this occurred in recent months.

Mr. Damien Allen

I do not have information on 2009.

Chairman

Could Mr. Allen report back to the clerk to the committee and find out which county councils employed consultants? Would it be possible to get that information for this particular issue?

Mr. Damien Allen

Yes.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Allen

Mr. Damien Allen

I would like to reassure the committee that there is a realisation that there is an issue. I would not like today's proceedings to conclude with a perception that the Departments concerned do not realise there is an issue. There is a history to this in terms of different legislation and inspection regimes being in place for different purposes but we realise that, particularly in the current economic circumstances, this issue must be addressed. Both Departments are discussing it and finalising arrangements to bring more efficiencies to bear. The Minister has said that.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

I am informed that Laois County Council has this year hired new people to carry out this inspection regime in this time of cutbacks. When no other cause is found for river pollution, is it assumed that the source is agriculture, or is the figure of 31% proven? I keep returning to this issue.

Mr. Pat Duggan

It is not a question of assuming it, but a question of EPA staff who are doing the river water surveys, as part of their sampling techniques at particular sites, making a judgment where a site is polluted as to the main cause of that pollution. They do not take measurements of or try to quantify the different sources of pollution. They make the best judgment at a particular site as to what the problem is. It is not a scientific proof but a judgment as to what the issue is.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

It could be an assumption.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan

The witnesses did not answer my question. Who will reimburse the councils for the cost of enlisting this army of inspectors again? Who will pay the piper?

Mr. Damien Allen

The councils already have a cadre of inspectors who carry out these functions and have done so for years.

Deputy Andrew Doyle

I made the point to Mr. Duggan, particularly in his earlier response, that if it is every four years, regarding calendar farming, is he prepared to assess its effectiveness, in light of what he said——

Mr. Pat Duggan

I am glad Deputy Doyle has come back on that because it is an important point and has not been brought to members' attention. A very substantial research project, the agricultural catchment programme, is under way. It is funded by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, supported by my Department and undertaken by Teagasc. The funding put towards it over a number of years is approximately €8 million. That work is under way and it examines a range of catchments across the country, including tillage. It will address some of the issues raised today regarding the effectiveness of the existing measures in reducing nutrient loss from tillage areas with the purpose of getting a better scientific understanding of how effective the measures in place are in terms in achieving the objectives. It will also examine alternative or improved measures that could be applied in the future in amending programmes.

This is never cast in stone. What has been done to date is based on best knowledge and what we think we know. Nobody ever knows everything. This work has been put in place with a purpose of improving knowledge and seeing how effective the measures are in achieving what they are supposed to achieve. Maybe there are better ways of doing it or other things need to be done. All that will feed into this process and future reviews and improvements of this over time. It will be entirely evidence based — on good research conducted by Teagasc on behalf of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The agricultural agencies are directly involved in ensuring the output of this work will feed into its future development.

Deputy Andrew Doyle

That is welcome.

Chairman

We all welcome it and are glad Mr. Duggan mentioned it. When does he believe it will be finalised? Will it be within a couple of years?

Mr. Pat Duggan

Initially, it will take place over four years. The work has been started, probably for about 12 months, but it will be some more years before we will see the output.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

The relevant period, 2004 to 2006, was quoted in lining up the major polluters or those who were causing the problem. I do not know how much farmers have spent during the past three years to address the problem. Has this been taken into account? It does not seem that it has because what we are getting is extra inspections. This is crazy and the matter will have to be examined. We have spent billions and what we are getting is extra inspections of our farms. This cannot be right.

Chairman

On behalf of the joint committee, I thank the officials from both Departments for attending, their comprehensive presentation and answering the considerable number of questions raised by members.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.40 p.m. sine die.