Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine díospóireacht

Nitrates Directive, Water Quality and Pollution: Discussion

Chairman

For the first session of today's meeting we are joined by representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. I would like to welcome the following: Dr. Eimear Cotter, director of the office of evidence and assessment; Ms Mary Gurrie, programme manager, water management programme, office of evidence and assessment; and Dr. Jenny Deakin, senior scientific officer, water management programme, office of evidence and assessment. They are all very welcome to the meeting. They will be given ten minutes to make their opening statement, before we proceed to questions and answers.

Before we begin, I will read the note on privilege. Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given. They are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should neither criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I now call Dr. Cotter to make her opening statement.

Dr. Eimear Cotter

I thank committee for the invitation to appear before it today. The Environmental Protection Agency’s mission is to protect and improve the environment as a valuable asset for the people of Ireland and to protect against the harmful effects of radiation and pollution. The EPA has a wide range of responsibilities as environmental regulator, knowledge provider and advocate. Specifically related to water quality, the EPA’s responsibilities include: co-ordinating and implementing the national monitoring programme to assess and report on water quality; assessing the impact of human activities and pressures on the status of water; and providing advice and assisting in the establishment of environmental objectives, programmes of measures and river basin management plans.

The nitrates directive is implemented in Ireland via the good agricultural practice regulations. Under these regulations, the EPA’s statutory functions relate to reporting to the European Commission on water quality in the context of the implementation of the directive. We provide the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine with an annual and independent assessment of water quality in Ireland as part of its annual derogation report. Every four years, the EPA compiles an assessment on the implementation of the nitrates directive. The EPA is a member of the nitrates expert committee, which is co-chaired by representatives of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage.

Water quality in Ireland is not as good as it should be. Our rivers, lakes, estuaries and groundwaters continue to be under pressure from human activities. Just over half of surface waters are in a satisfactory condition, which means that a large number are not in good ecological health. An overarching message in the EPA’s State of the Environment report, published at the end of 2020, is that the water environment needs to be improved and water pollution must be tackled locally at a water catchment level. The evidence shows that agriculture is the most significant pressure on water quality. The most widespread problem is excess nutrients from animals and fertilisers which have resulted in elevated levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in our waters.

Nutrient levels impact the ability of these waters to sustain healthy ecosystems and cause nuisance algal blooms. High nitrogen levels in drinking water that are above the drinking water standard can pose a risk to human health. In particular, nitrogen pollution is causing a pressure in parts of the south, south east and east of the country. A combination of freely draining soils and relatively intensive farming means that the risk of nitrate leaching is high. Rivers such as the Bandon, Lee, Blackwater, Suir, Nore, Barrow and Slaney have high nitrogen levels with significant implications for the marine environments they flow into.

On other agriculture impacts, pollution from phosphorus run-off, causes a pressure around the country on land where the soils are poorly draining. There are also problems arising from excess sediment from run-off and stream bank erosion, drainage impacting on physical habitat condition, as well as pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals in waters. Overall, the message is that protecting water quality is an issue for all farmers, not just those that have the largest or more intensive farms.

The nitrates action programme, NAP, is an important implementation mechanism to drive improvements in water quality and to meet our water framework directive objectives. However, the evidence shows that the fourth NAP has not protected water quality from nutrient pollution from agriculture. The EPA supports the range and breadth of proposed measures in the fifth and next NAP which, if implemented as proposed, will strengthen the protection of the environment.

A one-size-fits-all approach will not be adequate to achieve the outcomes that we need. Therefore, measures must be targeted to achieve water quality objectives. They need to be targeted and specific to the soils, activities and risks on the farm. The EPA has developed maps, called pollution impact potential maps, that show the highest risk areas for losing phosphorus and nitrogen in the landscape. We have also recently published an assessment of the amount of nitrogen reduction needed in the key catchments of concern along the south and south east. These tools can help policymakers, farmers and their advisors to target actions to reduce nutrient losses from farms.

Measures in the nitrates action programme must be consistent and aligned across agricultural and other environmental policy to achieve multiple environmental benefits. The EPA welcomes the acknowledgement in the consultation document that better cross-policy integration is needed. We also welcome the inclusion of measures for ammonia losses and greenhouse gas emissions as a means of joining up policy. It is clear from the consultation to date that there are issues with achieving compliance with the European Union (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters) Regulations. Securing compliance with all existing and new regulations needs to be given priority, using the full suite of tools from support and advice, incentives and a strengthened enforcement and inspection regime.

In summary, agriculture is the most significant pressure impacting on water quality. Trends are going in the wrong direction. A reduction in nutrient emissions to water is essential to achieve improvements in water quality and protect our coastal waters. The fifth nitrates action programme is an opportunity to reduce pollution from nutrients, which will also bring multiple benefits for health, climate, air quality and biodiversity. Targeted, consistent and substantial measures are needed as a matter of urgency, using the full suite of tools from advice, incentives and a strengthened enforcement and inspection regime to support compliance. The EPA is committed to working constructively and collaboratively with relevant Departments and agencies to provide the evidence base for assessing water quality and the wider environment, as well as assisting in developing plans and programmes that will protect and restore Ireland’s natural environment.

Chairman

I thank Dr. Cotter. We will open to questions from members. Before I go to the other members, I would like to ask Dr. Cotter about her statement that, "The evidence shows that agriculture is the most significant pressure on water quality". What percentage of the levels of nitrogen and nutrients in the water is the EPA attributing to agriculture?

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Our latest assessments show that agriculture impacts about 1,000 water bodies in the country. Agriculture is therefore the most significant pressure of those that are impacting water. The latest assessment from the EPA, which is supported by the draft River Basin Management Plan for Ireland 2018-2021, reports about 1,000 water bodies impacted by agriculture.

Chairman

What does the EPA's research show on waste treatment plants and their impact on water quality? Some population centres have inadequate waste treatment plants.

Some other smaller settlements have no waste treatment plants. How is their impact on water quality measured?

Dr. Eimear Cotter

There are other impacts on water quality, including inadequately treated wastewater. Our latest assessment shows that wastewater impacts on about 200 bodies of water in the country. Agriculture impacts on about 1,000 bodies of water while urban wastewater impacts on about 200. It is a significant pressure but it is lower relatively than that of agriculture.

Chairman

Dr. Cotter referred to 1,000 water bodies impacted by agriculture and 200 others which, for brevity, we will say are impacted by municipal authorities. Would the impact on water quality from waste treatment plants be more serious than the impact from agricultural sources?

Ms Mary Gurrie

We have done an assessment of the contribution of nitrates, as we referred to in the opening statement. In rural catchments, up to 85% of the nitrogen which impacts water quality comes from agriculture. In many rural catchments, especially in the south east, the dominant contributor, at up to 85%, is agriculture.

Chairman

Maybe I am not phrasing my question correctly. Where there are large population centres which, as I and others know, may have inadequate waste treatment plants, and others with no waste treatment plants, is there a more serious impact on water quality near those population centres than in rural areas where there is an impact? Is the deterioration of water quality greater near urban centres?

Dr. Eimear Cotter

The pressures on water quality are different around the country depending on the location but, with regard to water bodies, the agriculture sector has the greatest impact on nutrient levels, nitrogen and phosphorous run-off. We see nitrogen entering our rivers, especially in the south, south east and east of the country, moving through them freely and draining into marine environments. We see impacts on water quality across the country. Phosphorous run-off into our rivers and other water bodies happens in more poorly drained soils. I am not sure if I am answering the Chairman's question.

Chairman

Dr. Cotter is not. Have the witnesses a graph of the degree of deterioration of water quality or do they just say that it has deteriorated without showing the extent of the deterioration?

Dr. Eimear Cotter

We have maps that show the quality of water and how it varies, and this has helped to meet some environmental objectives. It shows what pressure there is on a water body, depending on the area. The pressures will be different depending on the location. Overall, the agricultural impact is greatest.

They are regulated under the GAP regulations so it is the local authorities and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine which keep a record of what is moving and so on.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Okay. I thank the witnesses. I will let somebody else in.

No, it was just a management issue really. We still have the rivers that flow across the boundary and they need to be managed in a cross-Border way and there are plans and programmes in place to do that.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I do not want to hog the meeting, but it would be useful if we could get a note on how exactly the co-ordination operates because it is crucially important.

From our perspective, we want to see measures that deliver for the environment as a whole, rather than looking at single environmental issues. We think that will give more bang for our buck, which makes more sense. It is a win-win. Looking at any measure that delivers for the environment overall in terms of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and water quality is more efficient and effective and will give better environmental outcomes.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I thank Dr. Cotter for her helpful contribution.

For the general public, it would be useful to see that a relevant body, such as the EPA, has taken the appropriate actions concerning the 200 bodies of water that have not been appropriately dealt with. The section 63 process has worked well. I refer in particular to Belgooly, in my part of the world, where the EPA worked efficiently and competently by invoking section 63, which remedied the problem. There is a great use for that process and I want to see it used more often on the ground. That is the point I wish to make. It would be helpful if the EPA provided that information to the committee.

Deputy Brian Leddin

I thank our guests for coming in to speak to us. We have heard, quite alarmingly, that a significant number of our watercourses are severely degraded and the effect and impact on human health, as well as biodiversity and the environment. It is therefore good that we have heard that today.

I note the EU water framework directive, which has been in place 20 or 21 years, requires that all water should be at good status by 2027 at the latest. I would like to know how we are doing in that regard. Is there any analysis that shows we are on course to meet the requirements of the framework directive?

I refer to the fifth nitrates action programme.

I note Dr. Cotter's words from her opening statement, that "the evidence shows that the fourth ... [nitrates action programme] has not protected water quality from nutrient pollution from agriculture". In relation to the fifth nitrates action programme, which we are here to discuss today, she said, "The EPA supports the range and breadth of proposed measures ... which, if implemented as proposed, will strengthen the protection of the environment. "I refer to that caveat "if implemented as proposed". Dr. Cotter might comment on it with regard to the fourth nitrates action programme. Was it simply the case that the measures were not implemented? What confidence can we have - perhaps it is not Dr. Cotter's place to say - that they will be implemented and that we will get the strengthening and protection of the environment from application of and adherence to those measures?

Dr. Eimear Cotter

First, in terms of meeting the requirements of the water framework directive, approximately half of our water bodies are in satisfactory condition and half need improvement. We will find it extremely challenging to meet our objectives under the water framework directive for 2027. At present, we can see the trends going in the wrong direction. Overall, we are seeing a loss in high-status water bodies and an increase in those water bodies that have yet to meet their environmental objectives. The trends are going in the wrong direction, and to meet those overall objectives by 2027 will be extremely challenging.

I thank Dr. Cotter.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I thank the three speakers for the comprehensive overview. I will try not to go over what everybody has said previously.

Looking at the nitrates concentration map in figure 1 in their report, if I draw a diagonal line from Belfast towards Kerry, it is telling that the bulk of the issue with nitrates is in the south and south east, as they rightly allude to it. You could probably think that maybe farmers on the western side of that line would feel somewhat aggrieved that they are being tagged with the issue. I appreciate there are issues with pesticides on the western seaboard. It probably comes back to a point the Chairman was trying to get at at the outset. The EPA has assigned 85% of the source of nitrogen to agriculture and yet, in its own report, it states there are significant issues with the Tolka and the Liffey river basins on the eastern seaboard as well as others in the south east.

By contrast, the majority of the nitrates in the Liffey and the Tolka catchment, which incorporates Dublin city, are from an urban wastewater. It would be remiss of me not to articulate a well-held view of farmers, that is, that because they operate such a large land base, it is not fair to compare them in the way they are compared in the EPA's reports. Statistics are like lies; they can be interpreted in different ways. The map in figure 1 is telling. There is a higher concentration of farming there but there is also a significant concentration of population and industry on that eastern seaboard. I hope it is not intentional but there is perhaps a tone in the EPA's submission, as well as in those from the two Departments, that the nitrates issue is very much one of farming only, but it is not and farmers will pay a heavy price. There will be a pesticide slurry chemical register and ours will be probably the most regulated sector in the battle against nitrates and nitrogen, and their impact on the economy.

I take it that our guests from the EPA prepared in advance of the meeting primarily to speak about the nitrates issue as it affects agriculture, but I think there is a story therein regarding the impact of industry and urban settlements. I am not sure how well prepared they are to expand on that, but will similar measures come into play for industry and, more important, for local authorities? On the one hand, they police this system but, in many respects, they are also probably one of the worst perpetrators.

Dr. Eimear Cotter

In regard to this committee, we focused our opening statement and our discussion on the agriculture sector. It constitutes the most significant pressure we see on water quality in the country. We are not looking at it to the exclusion of any other pressures. We discussed inadequately treated wastewater earlier and there are other pressures from areas such as forestry. We are also examining changes to rivers and their shapes and flows, for example. We are not focused on agriculture to the exclusion of all other pressures but, at the same time, that sector is exerting pressure on 1,000 water bodies in the country by virtue of our land use in Ireland. We seek to ensure that the agriculture sector, which is very important to us as a country, will continue to support our agrifood industry in respect of its green credentials. That can happen only if the sector moves forward on a sound environmental footing. As we see it, from where we sit looking at the science, evidence and data, those trends are going in the wrong direction for agriculture. That is what the science and the data are telling us.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

Dr. Cotter stated a number of times that agriculture represents the greatest threat to 1,000 water sources in the country but that is not the case. If I draw a diagonal line on the map, in probably half the country there is a high number of small and medium farmers, predominantly of sucklers, who are not the catalyst in respect of the nitrogen issue. I acknowledge that our guests have come to the meeting to talk to the farming community but it is important that they rephrase that figure in their future discussions to reflect the fact it is not solely farmers who are the greatest threat to those 1,000 water sources.

Dr. Eimear Cotter

To clarify, we are looking at the main pressures on water quality in Ireland, and agriculture represents the most significant pressure. That is not to the exclusion of everything else but it is what our data and evidence are showing us.

Senator Denis O'Donovan

Regarding the period of the past 20 years, what sort of graph do our guests have in respect of the damage caused by farming and intensive farming in particular? They stated it is getting worse rather than better. Is there a steer in that regard or what can be done?

Is there a correlation between global warming and water quality?

As a former local authority member, I recently conducted a survey and was horrified by what I learned about counties such as Cork, my home county, Donegal, Kilkenny and Waterford. I spoke to councillors and, in some cases, area engineers. Approximately 40%, and in some cases more, of wastewater plants for towns, villages and all sorts of settlements are either over capacity or at capacity. That sounds crazy, given there is such a big plan to develop housing and so on. I do not know whether it is the EPA's function, but has it ever issued a warning to local authorities in that regard? In my day, 30 or 35 years ago, local authorities looked after all the wastewater and so on and then Irish Water was set up. It is ironic that local authorities have to enforce these directives. I heard this information from officials at the councils and from local authority members. I acknowledge that the EPA's focus, because of our meetings, is on agriculture but I think the impact, either now or coming down the track, of an overload in capacity for wastewater treatment plants has not been highlighted sufficiently.

Dr. Eimear Cotter

We look at discharges of urban wastewater in the round every year and publish that information. We have been consistent and have repeatedly highlighted our concerns about the delays in Irish Water delivering on its plans and the infrastructure required to ensure wastewater is properly treated. That happens annually. As we said earlier, the environmental regulator will take enforcement action when we need to in order to ensure compliance with environmental legislation.

Dr. Deakin might pick up on the long-term trends.

Dr. Jenny Deakin

The Senator asked how matters have changed over the past 20 years. We were at the highest concentrations of nutrients in our water in the 1990s and, since then, there was a gradual improvement year on year until approximately 2011, 2012 or 2013. In that period, we were at our lowest in respect of nutrient concentrations and loads to the environment. Since then, unfortunately, the trend has changed again and the concentrations and loads are on the rise.

Senator Denis O'Donovan

It might be a superfluous question, but has global warming had any impact on the environment vis-à-vis water quality? Is it in any way related?

Dr. Jenny Deakin

We are conducting research on the environmental impacts and on how as a country we need to future-proof ourselves, in respect of adaptation but also of mitigation, to determine how we should look forward into the future. Some research programmes to examine that issue are under way.

Deputy Martin Browne

I thank our guests for attending the meeting. They stated that the nitrates action programme is important for improving water quality and meeting the water framework objectives. The fourth NAP, however, has not protected the water from nutrient pollution from agriculture.

The EPA supports the fifth NAP, which it believes will help to tackle the failure of the fourth one. It says the measure is designed to target specific soils as the best way to go. I have a few questions about that.

Do the witnesses think that the current system, whereby only farmers who require a nitrates derogation stocking rate of over 170 kg of nutrient per hectare or above are required to fence off watercourses at a minimum distance of 1.5 m, should be extended? Also, is there not a case to be made for farmers with a stocking rate at or below 100 kg of nitrate per hectare not to have to fence off watercourses? I am asking this because the committee met with Mr. Joe Condon of the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association, INHFA, recently, who warned that if an extension of this requirement happens, many farming hills and commonages would be forced out of cattle. With the budget fresh in our minds, it should be noted we are here today discussing measures to ensure, quite correctly, an improvement in our watercourses, and these measures will involve increasing environmental obligations on farmers, who, I must note, have been given hardly any new support. They have been disregarded. In the meantime, we consistently see farmers being targeted for blame for these problems. They are effectively being told to shoulder the burden of the changes needed.

We have to note that many farmers are getting the blame for the sins of just a few. What appears to be missing regularly from the argument is how the environment and economic sustainability can be married and work together, because the way this issue is being addressed is that one side is being pitted against the other, with the consensus being family farms will have to make changes and take the pain. We discussed the issue recently in the committee with representatives of the INHFA and they spoke of how a broad-brush approach to regulation does not take into account the different impacts of different types of farms. Can I hear the witnesses' thoughts on how they think the argument is being framed at present and what can be done?

Dr. Eimear Cotter

We start from what is happening in the environment. Looking at the trends for nitrates, 38% of rivers are seeing an increasing trend in nitrate levels and 24% of rivers are seeing an increasing trend in phosphorous levels. That is our starting point. There must be implementation of existing legislation. We know there are compliance issues with the existing GAP regulations. However, given those trends and given the ambition we must build to reverse those trends, we see the full suite of measures in the fifth action plan delivering a greater level of protection for the environment. They will have to be implemented, of course, and fully tracked and monitored to see they are working and having the impact on the environment that is necessary.

On the framing of the argument, it is not meant to be blame. Like everybody else, we can see the importance of the agriculture sector from an economic perspective and socially. It is people's livelihoods. The Deputy talked about farms. We are acutely aware of this. However, changing expectations, including consumer expectations, and the changing environment in terms of tackling greenhouse gas emissions and protecting the environment mean the agriculture sector will have to address the trends we are seeing in the environment, which are currently going in the wrong direction. The expansion of the sector has happened at the expense of the environment in respect of water quality, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. That commitment from the sector overall, which will benefit the economy and the environment, is something we have to see. It is absolutely imperative we can continue to trade off our green image as an agrifood nation that is very much built upon green credentials.

Deputy Martin Browne

Okay. There are other members who wish to contribute so I will leave it at that.

Senator Paul Daly

I thank the representatives from the EPA for attending the meeting today and for their submission to the committee. Many of the issues I was curious about at the start of the meeting have been addressed by other members, so I will not go back over old ground. I have two questions. The second is one I will probably have to make a statement on to explain what I am coming at, but I stress I want the witnesses' opinion and it is a question.

First, I realise the witnesses are concentrating today on nitrates and phosphorous on the agriculture side because this is the relevant committee on agriculture. Have the witnesses encountered any or many issues with water quality or issues in watercourses that have emanated from road run-off or soiled water from roads? I ask that question as somebody who lives in a very rural part of Ireland and I hear farmers complaining about the fact they are only allowed to put out slurry or soiled water on land a certain distance from a watercourse and at certain times of the year, yet all the run-off from the road is directed straight into the stream with no filtration system. Have the witnesses come across many or any issues in watercourses that they could track back to soiled run-off water?

The second question probably seeks the witnesses' opinion. I appreciate the witnesses have explained, both in their opening statement and in many of their answers today, that the EPA is basically the organisation that surveys and monitors and then the information it collects is fed into the policy process. It has an input into the writing of the policy in that regard in that it feeds into it. With that in mind and in regard to slurry spreading and the prohibited periods, I would like the witnesses' opinion on restriction by calendar. Do they think that is the most effective method being used when it comes to the regulations? I will explain what I mean by that. Do they think it is more damaging to spread slurry in a very wet February when you are not allowed to do it in what could be a very dry October? Could our policies or our prohibited periods be changed based on climate more so than by a date in the calendar? We can never predict whether it is going to be a wet fall, winter or spring. It has happened in numerous years that, although the spreading of slurry is prohibited from mid-September, the months of October and November were the two driest months of the year. Every tank in the country is full once the prohibition lifts and farmers have no choice but to get it out onto what can then be saturated land in February and early March. Which is the worst for the quality of the water? How would the witnesses propose we might change that scenario to gain the best benefit for our water quality?

Dr. Eimear Cotter

I can take the second part of that and Ms Gurrie will take the first question. To be clear, we do not input into the writing of the policy. Ours is a scientific, technical organisation and it provides the information about what is happening in the environment by looking at the trends and where the pressures are, and providing that information to the policymakers, who make their decisions on that basis. We are not involved in writing the policy. To get into the details of the measures is not where our expertise lies. We are looking at what is happening in the environment. We will provide that information to any decision-maker that needs it, but it is the experts in the agricultural sector, and perhaps the committee's discussion afterwards, that would be more focused on the measures. They are the ones who know which measures are going to be the most effective in delivering the outcomes in the environment that we will be tracking and that we want to see.

Ms Mary Gurrie

Road run-off can be a pressure on water quality, particularly in urban areas or more densely trafficked areas.

It is a category when we do our assessment of all the different pressure types. It is grouped into a category with urban pressures, missed connections and so on. As a percentage, it is a relatively small number. I do not know if Dr. Deakin has the figure to hand. It is in the draft river basin management plan. On big motorway developments, we will see those kinds of attenuation ponds on the side of the road to try to settle out some of the sediment from the road run-off.

Dr. Jenny Deakin

To follow up, we have 200 water bodies that are impacted by urban run-off, which would include the impact from roads. As Ms Gurrie said, scientifically, we see an impact from road run-off. It is mainly around the sediment issue we talked about previously. Sometimes, in the urban environment, it can also bring all sorts of other contaminants, such as heavy metals and other chemicals. Members will probably be aware that a research programme under way at the moment is looking at the run-off from farm roads. As Ms Gurrie said, a lot of work is in progress to manage the run-off from motorways. It is something we are aware of and that we input into our assessments.

Deputy Michael Collins

I welcome our guests. Many of my questions have already been asked. Everybody has to be very concerned about the quality of our waters and we have regulations in place. The funny thing is the witnesses said at the beginning that the problem is mainly caused by human activity. My belief is that the problem is the lack of human activity. I can bring the witnesses around west Cork any time they are free and show them raw sewage going into the tide from towns and villages. I can only speak for my constituency in west Cork, but it is not because of lack of effort by local people in towns and villages, whether it is Castletownshend or Goleen, and I can name a good few more, to try to turn it around. They have made superhuman, gallant efforts to stop this from happening and to bring the people who own the properties around the table with the council, Irish Water and others, but nothing happens.

It looks to me that if the farmer makes an infringement, the heavy weight of the law of the land will be brought down on him but if the local authority, Irish Water or whoever is breaking the rules, we publish its name on some paper. Publishing names on papers is not good enough; we want action. We want our towns and villages to have clean and clear water. Some of these towns and villages are the most beautiful places in which to live and holiday in the world. This is a sad reflection on society. The finger is continuously being pointed at the farmer when raw sewage is pumping into the tide from outdated wastewater plants, which were probably built in the 1940s and 1950s and were never capable of carrying what they were supposed to. Unfortunately, those plants are being overlooked. Their names are being published but nothing else is happening. We are drifting towards 2027 with the whole thing out of control and no solutions being put forward. If a farmer creates an infringement, there are many laws, rules and regulations around. What are the laws, rules and regulations if Irish Water or a local wastewater plant is pumping raw sewage into the tide continuously, year after year?

Dr. Eimear Cotter

There are 34 towns and villages throughout the country from which raw sewage is being released. This is a consistent problem. We have highlighted this concern again and again in the context of our concerns about the delays to investment in infrastructure. It is a serious issue from a public health point of view. The EPA has called out this issue on countless occasions in terms of the implications from a human health and environmental perspective.

Ms Mary Gurrie

There is enforcement. The EPA undertakes inspections and auditing of wastewater facilities. Some of these relate to operational matters and then follow-up in achieving the outcome. A compliance investigation can be opened and further enforcement or directions issued about what Irish Water needs to do.

The longer term challenge is that our wastewater infrastructure needs a long period of substantial and sustained investment. The EPA has repeatedly called it out that our wastewater infrastructure, as a country, is not where it should be. We do take action. We have our priority action list and our focus is on investment being prioritised into those areas to protect them, deal with raw sewage, comply with the wastewater treatment directive, protect water quality and really try to push to have those plants prioritised and upgraded as quickly as possible, so their impact on the environment is reduced. We have prosecuted Irish Water on several occasions for not delivering on the timeframes it committed to.

Deputy Michael Collins

I have one other question. If a farmer has an infringement on water quality, what rules does the EPA apply?

Dr. Eimear Cotter

That is the local authority's responsibility. Under the GAP regulations, local authorities carry out farm inspections, take enforcement actions and, ultimately, prosecute, if warranted. They are responsible, with assistance from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, which carries out some inspections for them, for driving compliance with water quality legislation in Ireland. On the EPA and its oversight role of local authorities and their performance overall, we have highlighted in recent years an issue around ensuring that compliance with water quality legislation is increased and the necessary actions are taken at local authority level. Local authorities are responsible for ultimately enforcing the GAP regulations.

Senator Eugene Murphy

I will try to keep to direct questions because it has been a pretty long session and, again, some of the questions have been clarified. I thank the three ladies for their engagement today.

I looked at Dr. Deakin's job description; she is described as a senior catchment scientist. Does that take her all over the country and does it allow her to engage with communities on the work she is doing?

We have a significant number of group water schemes throughout the country. They do wonderful work on water quality programmes. In fact, they are now being funded by the Departments of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and Housing, Local Government and Heritage. Do the witnesses engage with those schemes? Their work is sometimes not recognised in the media. They are doing outstanding work on the quality of water schemes and they are all over rural Ireland.

Are the witnesses aware of other projects on herbicide contamination, again involving group water schemes? In some parts of the country, herbicide detection has halved on certain streams and rivers because of a group water scheme that includes local farmers. It simply involves replacement certification provided gratis by the group for water schemes with individual farmers meeting the costs of any additional parts that are required and servicing the boom sprayers. This fantastic work is going on under our noses in rural Ireland. It would make perfect sense - maybe this happens - to have an engagement between those groups and the EPA. I commend the EPA on its work because it has been very important in parts of the country in speaking up on issues that were wrong, but is that engagement there? Does it happen and is the EPA aware of those programmes? I understand more funding is to be provided for them.

Dr. Jenny Deakin

Our role as a national agency is to look at the science on a national basis. In order to help us do that, we pull in information from all sorts of public bodies that are nationally and regionally based.

That includes local authorities, for example, fisheries and parks and wildlife etc. We do not have a role in engaging directly with communities. That role is firmly served by the local authorities' waters programme, LAWPRO, of which members may be aware. There are a number of community water officers who engage with communities. We then get the findings from that work back through our engagement with LAWPRO and the local authorities that way. We hear the feedback but it is second-hand straight from the communities.

We have direct engagement with the group water scheme sector. We sit on a number of committees together, for example, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage has one on drinking water source protection, which is a new requirement under the drinking water directive whereby we start to protect water for drinking in the catchment rather than just going straight for the treatment at the source. As the Deputy rightly said, the group water scheme sector is doing exemplary work in that regard in those catchment areas. They have some great plans and programmes, particularly the one around the bees, with which I am sure members are familiar. It is bringing fantastic results for them. We are aware that great work is going on and we can see that demonstrated in the results.

Senator Eugene Murphy

I will comment very briefly on herbicide contamination because that is vital in terms of what they are doing in group water schemes. It seems to be a very interesting scheme. The reason I am saying that is that sometimes rural communities and farmers probably feel that they perhaps get unfair coverage or do not get credit for what they are doing. This is really something that should be developed for the politicians perhaps to suggest more engagement. I accept that it is not the EPA's job to do that. Herbicide contamination is going to become a big issue, however. I acknowledge that. Is the EPA aware of those schemes?

Dr. Jenny Deakin

Yes, we are.

Chairman

On behalf of the committee, I thank the officials from the EPA for engaging with us on these very significant and wide-ranging issues. They might get back to us with information on section 63, which they can relay to the secretariat. We would very much appreciate it. I propose that we suspend the meeting for a few minutes to allow the next witnesses to join.

Sitting suspended at 7.02 p.m. and resumed at 7.06 p.m.

Chairman

We are joined by officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. I welcome Mr. David Flynn, principal adviser from the water division, and Mr. Donal Grant, water policy adviser, from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, and Mr. Jack Nolan, senior inspector, and Mr. Bernard Harris, agriculture inspector, from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. They are all very welcome. They will be given ten minutes each to make their opening statements before we go into questions and answers.

Before we begin, I will read an important note in relation to parliamentary privilege. Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect to the evidence that they give to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given. They are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I call Mr. Flynn to make his opening statement.

Mr. David Flynn

I thank the Chairman for the invitation to speak with the committee on the subject of the European Union’s 1991 nitrates directive and Ireland’s forthcoming nitrates action programme 2022. I am joined by my colleague, Mr. Donal Grant, who is a water policy adviser with our Department and co-chair of the nitrates expert group.

Ireland’s nitrates action programme must protect surface waters and groundwater from pollution arising from agricultural sources. Under the terms of the nitrates directive, Ireland must review and update our national nitrates action programme by the end of this year. Our review must take into account the recent trends in water quality. We have conducted a broad public consultation and held discussions with key stakeholders including farm organisations and non-governmental organisations. Our department is working closely with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on this review and on related agri-environmental policy measures.

Our water quality is under increasing pressure. The EPA has reported that almost half of our water bodies are not in satisfactory condition. The most significant pressures on water are from excessive nutrients, namely, phosphorous and nitrogen, siltation of waterways and changes to the physical habitats of our rivers.

People need clean water to drink, for sanitation and for swimming. Our food industry trades on Ireland’s image as a clean and green source of sustainable food production. Ireland’s tourist industry relies on our image as a green island with well-stocked, healthy fisheries with unpolluted estuaries without green algae and with clean beaches next to good quality bathing waters. Our biodiversity needs unpolluted water. All of this requires well-protected water catchments.

While I am focusing my comments today on agriculture, I want to assure the committee that our Department is also taking action right across the full range of significant water pressures to protect and enhance our waterways. Ireland has binding obligations under the water framework directive to protect all water. We are obliged to prevent the deterioration of water status and we must bring all water to at least good status by 2027 at the very latest. At present, we are a long way from this objective and water quality trends in many of our water bodies are going in the wrong direction. The situation is urgent and requires collective action across a number of policy areas to halt and reverse this deterioration in water quality.

The Minister, Deputy O’Brien, recently published a draft river basin management plan for the period 2022 to 2027 for a six month consultation period running until March of next year. We have given copies to the Chairman for members, which we can pass over if necessary. The final plan will be published in mid-2022 following this consultation period.

This draft sets out over 100 proposed measures to address all pressures across water bodies from different activities and sectors. The nitrates action programme and the associated agricultural sustainability support and advice programme, ASSAP, are two of the key measures for mitigating agricultural pressures.

The nitrates directive dates back to 1991. Ireland has had a long and often difficult history with the implementation of this directive. In 2004, the Court of Justice of the European Union, CJEU, issued a judgment against Ireland following its failure to fulfil its obligations under this directive. There is a binding requirement in the nitrates directive that each member state must set a general limit not exceeding 170 kg nitrogen per hectare. Ireland has requested a derogation up to 250 kg nitrogen per hectare, where conditions permit. We are looking to review this derogation. Ireland’s dairy industry relies heavily on this derogation facility. However, securing the derogation depends on Ireland demonstrating a robust nitrates action programme that shows that we will achieve the obligations and objectives of the nitrates directive.

An initial public consultation on the next programme was open from November 2020 until January 2021. The expert group then developed a draft programme. We held a second public consultation on this draft from August until mid-September of this year. This is in addition to, and in parallel with, various stakeholder events, webinars and an ongoing dialogue with key stakeholders.

The proposed draft measures for the next programme were set out in detail in the consultation document. The measures are now being adjusted and finalised, having regard to the issues, suggestions and concerns raised by people during the consultation period. The draft measures for the next programme include new requirements for slurry and soiled water storage and management; revised livestock excretion rates; proposals for a dairy industry nitrogen reduction initiative; new controls on chemical fertilisers; a chemical fertiliser register; green cover on tillage ground; new requirements on grazing land management; a commitment to review compliance assurance activities by local authorities; and enforcement by local authorities. The draft also includes a commitment to address the sustainable reuse of sewage and industrial sludge, as well as measures to help address ammonia emissions from agriculture.

Finally, both this next programme and the draft River Basin Management Plan 2022-2027 propose to expand the ASSAP to work directly with farmers, industry and advisory services to protect and deliver improvements in water quality. In order to protect water quality, individual farmers will need support from their industry. The Irish agrifood sector depends on our clean, green image. Our dairy processors, in particular, rely on the derogation facility in the directive. Environmental sustainability also needs economic sustainability. Industry needs to provide farmers with a reasonable economic return for operating sustainably within the limits of their land. Farmers will need programmes that include both economic returns for doing the right thing and ready access to practical farm-level advice.

I will finish with a note on the next steps. It is expected that, following a review of the consultation responses, we will have the draft regulations text within the next few weeks. This will then be presented to the European Commission for agreement. We anticipate that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Charlie McConalogue, will publish a final action plan by the end of December, along with new good agricultural practice regulations. With regard to Ireland’s application for a derogation, if the Commission decides to grant Ireland a derogation, the terms of the decision will be presented at a meeting of the EU nitrates committee in mid-December. Member states will then vote on the derogation decision. If the vote is successful, the derogation will be published as a Commission decision as soon as practicable after that. It will be transposed into national legislation thereafter.

I thank members for their attention. We will be happy to take any questions and we will take account of members' views when we finalise the programme.

Mr. Jack Nolan

I thank the committee for the invitation to speak with it on the topic of the nitrates directive and Ireland’s new nitrates action programme 2022. I am joined by my colleague, Mr. Bernard Harris, who is an agricultural inspector with the Department and a co-chair of the nitrates expert group.

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is fully engaged in developing and supporting a new revised and strengthened nitrates action programme and nitrates derogation in 2022. This is a key commitment in the programme for Government. From the Department's perspective, the agricultural sector is committed to stabilising and improving water quality. The review of the nitrates action programme provides a timely opportunity to review the impact of agriculture on our water environment and support agriculture's ambition to stabilise and improve water while seeking as many co-benefits for climate, air and biodiversity as possible.

The Departments involved have built strong relationships to collectively develop a cohesive policy response in delivering and implementing policy to improve water quality to coincide with the delivery of the next river basin management plan. The Departments also work closely with the Environmental Protection Agency in reviewing water quality monitoring and water quality trends and investigating and understanding the pressures from nutrients, pesticides and sediment losses from agriculture.

To develop future agricultural measures for the protection of the environment, Teagasc was asked to review and model the impact of potential measures. This work concluded that a number of additional measures will further minimise nutrient losses to the environment. The nitrates derogation, which is 250 kg of nitrogen from livestock manure per hectare, was considered environmentally safe, based on Ireland’s grass-based system of production.

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has been at the forefront of assessing the regulatory baseline for agriculture. It has been proactive in reviewing and balancing measures to minimise the impact of agriculture on the environment. Ireland has been a leader in the EU in protecting the environment through a strong nitrates regulation that includes both nitrogen and phosphorus, unlike most other EU member states.

The Department initiated the voluntary review of the nitrates derogation in 2019. The nitrates derogation covers 7,000 farmers. It is an important facility for the livestock sector. The review introduced additional measures to improve on-farm efficiencies and help reduce agriculture's impact on the environment. Additional measures have been introduced for a further 5,000 farmers in 2021. These measures are being targeted to farmers to improve environmental efficiencies. The Department has been aligning agriculture policies and strategies to ensure we arrive at a coherent approach to meeting agriculture’s commitments to the environmental challenges of climate, air, water and biodiversity.

Agriculture has a significant role to play in meeting our environmental targets. The strong support and work being delivered by farmers to address our environmental challenges must be acknowledged.

I thank the committee for its attention and time today. We will be happy to take any questions from members.

Chairman

Before I invite members to ask questions, I ask Mr. Flynn to explain the voting process at EU level. We have arranged all of our ducks in a row, as we see fit, and we will take our proposal to Brussels in December. Will the Council of Ministers make the decision or will it be the Commission?

Mr. David Flynn

The Commission makes a recommendation to the nitrates committee. That is a committee made up of member state officials which was formed under the directive. Member states will then vote on the recommendation. I ask Mr. Grant to give a brief overview of the process.

I welcome our guests and thank them for their opening statements and for coming to speak to us. On the derogation, we heard earlier from the EPA that we are in quite a chronic situation with respect to nitrates and phosphorous pollution of watercourses throughout the country, and particularly with respect to nitrates in the south and the east. There seems to be a correlation between the farms that are granted the derogation and the watercourses that are severely affected.

My question relates to the process. If Ireland applies to the Commission for a derogation in December, how will we in turn decide which farms will get the derogation? I have to hand a copy of a map showing all the farms in the country that got a derogation in the past, and another map that shows the severely deteriorated areas. It shows in the south and the east of the country the very badly impacted watercourses. If we get the derogation in December, how will we manage which farms in Ireland get it? It seems there is a strong correlation and much of the intensive farming in that part of the country is leading to a deterioration of our water quality, which we simply have to address. I do not want to put words in the mouths of our guests from the EPA, but they effectively said we were not on course to reach the 2027 objective of achieving good status throughout our watercourses.

Mr. Bernard Harris

It is important to recognise that all farmers, of both extensive and intensive farms, have a key role in protecting water quality, whether that is from a nitrogen or a phosphorous perspective. Nitrates have been increasing in the south and the south east but there are many contributing factors. Soil type, the climate and weather events have key roles in that area. There is a correlation but I might refer to a key example, which I am sure the EPA went through. Within the Barrow-Nore-Suir catchment, 85% of nitrogen loss comes from agriculture. It is estimated, however, that 30% of that comes from tillage area. There is a combination effect from all sectors around this and it is not all from the intensive livestock sector. We have to look at this as a whole across farming.

Mr. Jack Nolan

The principle of the derogation is that it is allowed for within the directive that was signed in 1991. Even at that time, there was a recognition that different soil types and conditions within a country could allow farmers there to apply more livestock manure than the standard safety limit. An article in the directive states that if there is a long growing season, high net rainfall, as we have, and high denitrification capacity in the soil, the member state is eligible to apply for a derogation. Ireland meets those scientific criteria and that has been agreed by the EPA, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Teagasc and us. We have applied every four years since 2006 and we have been successful.

There has definitely been an increase in the loss of nitrogen over recent years. That is why we took pre-emptive action in 2019 with a voluntary review of the derogation. That did not take place in any other member state and was not pre-empted by the Commission but we took the action to cause change on farms. Earlier this year, we approached Teagasc in Moorepark - we are in consultation with it all the time - and asked it to model a series of measures and predict what their outcome would be. I presume that when the EPA was appearing before the committee, it referred to the total nitrogen reduction rate that is needed in each catchment to bring it to good water status.

Teagasc has modelled the measures the Departments have proposed in the consultation document. If these measures are allowed on to farms and they are successful, we can reverse the trend and facilitate high stocking rates.

As we get more information, we will need more targeted measures on farms because certain parts of a field, never mind a farm or a parish, behave differently from other parts as regards soil type, and there will be more losses. These are called critical source areas and in the future we will have to home in on those more. We also know that if every farmer in a catchment has a high stocking rate, it will be difficult for water quality to thrive. The Deputy was probably at the Teagasc open day in Moorepark, at which Teagasc told farmers they can reduce their surplus from an average of 180 kg per hectare to 100 kg per hectare and increase their nitrogen use efficiency from 25% to 50%. The price of fertiliser is nearly double what it was this time last year. That will have a major impact. The proposed measures will take water quality in the right direction but there is a serious need for investment, particularly in slurry storage on dairy farms, to get better use of the nutrients that are produced.

Deputy Brian Leddin

I would like to hear the thoughts of Mr. Flynn and Mr. Grant. Is it the case that we would apply for this derogation and then seek to manage the impact on watercourses ourselves? It appears from Mr. Flynn's statement that the matter is urgent and collective action across a number of policy areas is required to halt and reverse the deterioration in water quality. We only have six years to do that. Realistically, are we going to get there? As far as I understand it, the EPA is saying we will not. Accepting that the fifth nitrates action programme provides for a range of measures that might take us in the right direction, will it get us there quickly enough and will the measures be implemented? The EPA was broadly positive about the action plan but with the caveat that the measures need to be implemented. It also indicated that the fourth nitrates action programme did not cut it. I am interested in hearing the views of the officials from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage on that.

Mr. David Flynn

I am talking about the quality of the animal so that in future the cow might produce a higher proportion of solids. Is the Department looking at any part of that so we do not go down the road of perhaps gaining with solids but losing part of our beef industry, especially in light of some of the comments in the media by some people in Teagasc? It was stated that people should be rearing these so-called dairy calves.

Mr. Jack Nolan

Senator Paul Daly

I also have a couple of questions which I put to the representatives of the EPA when they were before the committee. The first is for the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage officials. This issue was raised with me by a frustrated farmer who is abiding by all the conditions. His land abuts the road and there is a stream going through it. The local authority rocked up and started shoring the water directly from the road into the watercourse or stream. Is there any directive from the Department to local authorities or any policy on avoidance of that scenario in the future? The representatives of the EPA confirmed that they have encountered and discovered numerous issues in watercourses and streams that they could track back to water run-off.

The final question is for the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine officials. Again, it seeks an explanation. With regard to the prohibited slurry spreading periods, do they think we are getting the maximum mitigation or value from a calendar-based prohibited period? As I said in the last session, the reason I ask is that our climate seems to have changed. We are told we cannot spread slurry during the months of October, November and December. They could be the three driest months of the year and there could be a wet spell in January, but the farmers are back out because they have no choice. I acknowledge what the officials said about getting the maximum growth quality and maximum return from slurry, but there could be a situation where the capacity is full to the brim and the farmer has to get some out. Has the Department done any surveys or has it any results on what would be the maximum mitigation process for prohibited periods? Is there any way it could be done based on ground conditions rather than just a date on the calendar, when we have no idea what the weather and ground conditions are going to be during that period? It might be safer for our water to spread slurry on dry land during large portions of that period rather than having to spread it the minute the prohibited period is over due to capacity issues, when land conditions could be at their worst for the acceptance of slurry.

Mr. David Flynn

To address the road run-off, the same obligations apply across the board. We have the same obligations across all water bodies, so any pollution that is caused will have to addressed. As regards surface run-off, obviously its nature would be different from run-off from a farm area if it was coming from a road. However, if it is causing an issue, it has to be dealt with. Urban run-off, which may be slightly different, is probably the nearest information we have to the situation the Senator described. Approximately 150 water bodies out of the 2,800 are at significant pressure at present. It is certainly an issue that features, although probably not as highly as the agricultural issues. However, there is an equal obligation on the country to address the issue.

Mr. Jack Nolan

The grass growth curve I talked about shows that grass growth starts in January, when we get above about 5°, and from August onwards it slows down rapidly. There was a study by Professor Nick Holden of University College Dublin, UCD, on soil moisture deficit which looked at applying slurry based on when the land could take it and a tanker could travel. That showed that one should be spreading less than what is allowed in the open period. It is 8 p.m. now and it is dark outside. If this was May or June it would probably still be bright and warmer. Temperatures have dropped now. Applying slurry on a dry day in November is going to do a lot more harm than applying it next spring. One is getting no value out of it and paying the same amount of money for spreading it. The Teagasc agricultural catchment programme shows that when there is high rainfall, regardless of the time of year, there are going to be losses. Up to 50% of the losses from agriculture can occur during the closed period and when there is rainfall or storm events throughout the year.

Farming by calendar definitely annoys people because they are being told what to do. However, what the Senator said goes to the heart of the issue. People are stuck in January. No cattle are in a shed yet. This is the middle of October. If I had 16 weeks' storage, which I need in this part of the country, it would get me up to the middle of February. Why are people spreading in the middle of January? The reason is that they do not have enough storage. They look at the legal minimum in the regulation and say they will get by. However, they are not getting by, and that is causing many of our water problems. We do not have enough slurry storage to get us out to the time of the year when we will get most value from it.

Senator Paul Daly

I agree with everything Mr. Nolan said. There are no cattle inside today and it is the middle of October, but I had cattle inside at the end of August a couple of years ago. Mr. Nolan knows what I mean. There has to be give and take on this issue also. I am on Mr. Nolan's side and I agree with most of what he is saying. However, one can have the storage, but it depends on when one has to house the cattle initially, and that varies from year to year. The calendar scenario really snookers farmers irrespective of what storage they have.

Senator Tim Lombard

It is great to have the witnesses before the committee. It is a very important topic. Climate change, CAP reform and this issue are probably the three issues that most affect the Irish farming community. Many farming pages have been written in the last few months about this issue. I will try to be brief. I am seeking clarity on the proposals. The banding of the cows and the fixing of the three bands being proposed are limiting to some degree. The second band, in particular, is quite large. The majority of the animals are in the second band. Are there proposals to consider more than just three bands and, given the demographics of the dairy herd, to look at extending the number of bands to five, perhaps? Has any modelling been done of that scenario, how it would fit in and how it could be more appropriately managed regarding this issue?

Mr. Jack Nolan

It there were more bands, it would mean that some cows would be up around 120 kg. Having three bands - 82 kg, 92 kg and 106 kg - means that a cow at 10,000 l would be much higher. However, everything is there to be taken on board and to be considered.

Mr. Jack Nolan

I spoke earlier about the agricultural catchments programme. The lead researcher in the programme, Per-Erik Mellander, has written a paper with colleagues in Finland on the impact of climate. It is accepted that even with all the best measures in place, climate can overwhelm what is in place.

Senator Tim Lombard

That is a fair acknowledgement. I will be polite in making my final argument, which is on an environmental issue. It is a huge issue for climate and society and if we are to solve it, finance will be key. The first thing we need will be a major increase in potential storage, which will require cheap money and a whole-of-government approach. The Departments have responsibility for housing and agriculture. Is there a whole-of-government approach to dealing with the nitrates action programme? Has there been correspondence between the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the Department of Finance on the amount of money required over the next five years to implement this plan? If we look at the previous figures, it will probably be in the billions. A previous plan a decade ago led to a major increase in natural capacity and cost an awful lot of money. In fact, I understand the Comptroller and Auditor General had an issue with the plan and produced a report on how much money was spent. Have all Departments engaged in a deep review of how much this could cost and what will be done to make sure the farming community gets the money?

Mr. Jack Nolan

There is ongoing discussion between all Departments about the environment. We have to remember first that the polluter pays principle applies. Many farmers, although not all, have expanded and we have 500,000 extra cows. We are now going back to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to say we want to grant-aid or subsidise this. That is one way of dealing with the issue. The other is through MilkFlex and other similar loans. The banks, for example, give low-cost loans to applicants who have a better green rating for their house. Why can the same thing not be done for agriculture? At the minute, the State-----

Senator Tim Lombard

I agree with all those points. My point is that we have a whole-of-government approach when it comes to agriculture. When it came to the job strategy back in the day, it was a whole-of-government approach as well. The investment required on farms the length and breadth of Ireland will be huge. I am wondering about that whole-of-government approach. Low-cost loans will be a major part of this. If we come back next January without having low-cost loan measures tagged on to the nitrates action programme, it will be unsustainable for the majority of these farmers. Mr. Nolan is right. There are issues with banks and co-operatives but with regard to the whole-of-government approach, there has to be a countermeasure from the Department of Finance or the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to make sure this happens.

Mr. Bernard Harris

Within the budget, the future growth loan scheme was extended further so that is available for farmers. Mr. Nolan mentioned that the industry is an essential part of this. We have had discussions with MilkFlex and Finance Ireland around the potential future there. We are working closely with the industry to look at this area, especially slurry storage. We have asked for prioritisation in this area because it is important. It is the elephant in the room and it needs to be solved.

In terms of a whole-of-government approach, we have also had discussions with the Department of Finance and we will see how those progress.

Deputy Martin Browne

I welcome the witnesses from the two Departments. The key factor is ensuring optimum soil fertility by balancing nutrition and minimising sediment losses in the environment. Legislation is being developed to allow this to be adopted. What about farmers who want to avail of a good price on fertilizer? Will this inhibit their ability to shop wisely?

Under the enforcement reform, approximately 2,000 nitrates inspections take place every year and the level of compliance with the GAP regulation seems low compared with other countries. The group has made suggestions and submissions. To get a handle on what is being faced in terms of compliance, do we know which types of operators are not compliant with the GAP regulations? Will a line be drawn between how high-risk areas are targeted and ensuring there is no undue imposition on farms?

Under the management of slurry, farmers must have a legal minimum slurry storage capacity to be eligible to apply for the derogation. I wonder if it is fair to make these demands on farmers in such a short space of time, especially young farmers who are starting up.

The chemical crop licence controls deal with the nitrogen allowances, which will be reduced by 10% nationally and up to 15% in areas most in need. When we spoke to Tim Cullinan I asked him what impact this would have on the tillage sector. I will read out his reply. He asked a question at the end which perhaps the Department will answer.

If we were to have a closing date of 15 September, many of these crops would not even be harvested by then. We hear from the Department that we want to build up organic matter on tillage farms. This is a valuable resource, in particular, from the pig and poultry sector. Traditionally, much of the organic fertiliser coming from these sectors went to tillage farms. Will somebody explain to me how this will work if we are to bring the date back to mid-September?

I ask the officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to answer those questions.

Mr. Flynn stated that water quality is under increasing pressure, almost half of our water bodies are not in a satisfactory condition and we must bring all water to at least good status by 2027. The Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, to be fair to him, published a draft river basin management plan. There is a six-month public consultation and a list of measures within the plan. In the horticultural sector we have seen people experience difficulties when multiple Departments are involved in a particular issue. The two Departments represented here include one of the Departments concerned. I want to ask about the level of interaction in real time when it comes to the measures needed to ensure the health of our watercourses and the challenges these measures create for the agricultural sector. I ask that because while both Departments share the same concerns, they have different priorities in terms of the sectors they represent. Could they answer that, please?

Mr. David Flynn

I can answer the questions on enforcement and compliance and also on interaction. On compliance and inspections, we do not necessarily have data on the types of issues that are coming up in this regard. Local authorities carry out the inspections. We know, however, that the inspection rates are variable from year to year. We are doing some work now with the EPA through what is called the NIECE network, which is the network of local authority enforcement, and looking at targeting the inspections and resources we have at the areas of highest risk for water quality. We will only inspect in areas where there is something to inspect and where there is something that will improve water quality.

I will also mention ASSAP and the work done through LAWPRO. The latter goes into these high-risk areas and our 190 priority areas for action, looks at what is happening in those catchments and then pass that information to ASSAP, which is the farm advisory service. It works individually with farmers on a confidential basis. This approach is in its early stages and we only have early data but it has shown that the areas in question are performing better than the rest of the country. There is an awful lot of potential in that.

Regarding interaction, over the past two years as we put together the draft river basin management plan and this nitrates review as well as having been involved in the CAP strategic plan preparation, there has been considerable real-time ongoing interaction between our Departments. We work very well on these issues and have developed a keen understanding of the priorities across both Departments. I assure the Deputy that there is real and practical interaction and collaboration between the Departments on these issues.

In addition, more formal committees are in place. We on the water side have what is called the water policy advisory committee which is cross-departmental and deals with water quality issues. That is chaired by our assistant secretary. At an operational level, there is the national co-ordination and implementation committee and the technical implementation group. At all levels of governance, there is considerable interaction and practical working together.

Mr. Donal Grant

I want to add one point to what Mr. Flynn said. He referenced the targeting of inspections to critical source areas. We will definitely work on that area with local authorities. A number of individuals within local authorities already work on that basis when they are developing their own inspection plans for their jurisdictions. For the most part, they are aware of where the issues are within their own county and that is where they tend to target their inspections.

Mr. Bernard Harris

I will respond to the first two points. It is planned and included as part of the proposals that a chemical fertiliser register will be developed for implementation from 1 January 2023. This is very much in the early stage of development, in that primary legislation needs to be developed and a system put in place. However, we will be working with industry and with all stakeholders, including farmers, to deliver this.

The Deputy asked about the nitrogen allowance. A 10% reduction is being proposed in the current submissions. Under the current technical table of the regulation, there will be a 10% reduction in the chemical allowance being proposed. This reduction is only applicable to grassland farms and is not being targeted at tillage farmers. Therefore, those allowances will not change for tillage rates.

Regarding the proposal for generating a green cover post harvest within seven days, we are reviewing the current submissions as part of the review. There are concerns whether that can be practically done within a very tight timeframe. We are considering all the options available to us.

Mr. Jack Nolan

The Deputy is correct that we should be treating stock farmers differently, and we do. There are more requirements for derogation farmers, for example, but the Deputy should not think that being extensive means one is having no impact on water quality.

Deputy Matt Carthy

That is fair enough. My understanding from the EPA's engagement with us earlier is that essentially it was advocating a farm-by-farm analysis approach rather than a blanket one-size-fits-all. The consultation document that caused so much consternation in my view advocates a one-size-fits-all approach or, at least, does not reflect the need to deal with this. Some farmers have pristine water travelling through their land and they are very careful to protect it. They need to be not only supported and encouraged in that regard but rewarded or, at least, not be penalised.

Mr. Jack Nolan

We agree, but just because one is not letting slurry flow down the field into water does not mean that there are not losses going down through the soil into it. On the consternation the Deputy referred to, there is a focus on water quality like never before. Earlier another Deputy mentioned that there are different priorities within the Department. I do not accept that. We are exporting over €14 billion worth of agricultural product every year on foot of Origin Green. Bord Bia does a fantastic job on exports, but that is based on the principle that we are clean and green and delivering what we are saying, that is, clean water, biodiversity that is thriving - which it is not - and climate change, about which we do not have time to talk today. I am aware that the Deputy has previously covered this, but what we are looking for across Government is a sector that can and will deliver for the environment. I agree wholeheartedly that farmers should be rewarded for that. This would mean farmers would have an income from what they produce, what they do for the environment and from subsidies as well, but we are not there yet. The consumer has a major role to play here, as does industry, to reward farmers for change on their farms such as keeping hedgerows better.

If one looks at any of the feedback on this review what one will note is that many farmers are pointing to a minority and other farmers are not accepting that anymore. They have done a lot for the environment in terms of the many hedgerows that have been planted over the past 20 years. There are people who still want to trim hedges in the summer or who cut down the hedge such that it is just a grassy bank while others would let it grow. There is a European innovation project in Waterford known as Biodiversity Regeneration in Dairying Environment, or BRIDE, under which intensive dairy farmers are doing as much for the environment as many very extensive farmers. We need to be careful not to differentiate too much between intensive and extensive farming. Although they can deliver differently for the environment, they can all deliver. That is the message that the Department wants to get across.

Deputy Matt Carthy

Mr. Nolan is saying that the solution is for extensive farmers to look at intensifying.

Mr. Jack Nolan

No. What I said is, everybody has something to offer.

Deputy Matt Carthy

Chairman

No, that is out of order.

As a member of the committee and a farmer that farms in derogation, I would like to make a number of points. Deputy Carthy asked about grant aid. Contractors are an important part of the farm structure. That they are not grant-aided to purchase some of this slurry equipment needs to be looked at. A significant number of farmers will use contractors for the new low emissions slurry spreading. That should be looked at.

I would also ask that the Department give careful consideration to the medium output cow not being penalised such that people would be encouraged to go back to the low output, high solid cow. There are too many downsides to that from a sustainability point of view. I accept that is a decision for farmers individually, but I would like the bands to be examined. I take the point that a significant number of cows fall into the second category, but for the cross-bred cow, in terms of sustainability, there are a lot of issues there. I would not like to see the good friesian cow with a medium output being penalised.

On grant aid for the slurry accommodation that will be brought forward, it was stated that farmers have made a decision to increase numbers, why the Department would grant-aid it and also that the polluter should pay. We all want to see water quality maintained and improved. When we last did a major investment in farm infrastructure, we had a 60% grant rate with a far higher ceiling that we have now under TAMS.

That had a very significant impact on water quality. Water quality improved after it. I ask that there be some consideration. We know the way the cost of building is going at the moment and the ceiling of €80,000 for the TAMS is not realistic. We need a far higher ceiling. I would like consideration to be given to a far higher ceiling than the 60%, for younger farmers who have taken over a farm, for example.

The other thing really bugging me is slurry technology. There is an awful lot of advanced technology with slurry out there at the moment. We have not invested in it at Government level. I have had a number of stakeholders come to me with technology and projects that are not economically viable at present without some kind of grant aid but whose benefit can be huge. We are talking about people who can distil the water from slurry, take away the solid part and give you back a pelleted organic fertiliser. The benefit of this can be huge. We see it operating in Northern Ireland in the intensive pig farms and poultry farms. We have been very neglectful in not having more pilot schemes on the slurry technology that is there. I have had seven or eight entrepreneurs who have the technology approach me but it is not economically viable. The benefit that would be there for everyone is immense.

I regret this technology has not been advanced further before we go into this derogation debate. Everyone is entitled to their opinion here but the derogation is hugely important for our dairy industry, which would be crippled without it. It would have a huge financial impact on a constituency like my own which is hugely dependent on dairy. It is imperative we keep it. I am not going into a blind tunnel. I accept we must recognise we must protect water quality as well and the derogation must come with conditions but it is hugely important it is preserved and that it does not affect our cost of production as well. I make these points as an individual, not as Chairman of the committee but I wanted to make them. I do not mind whether the officials respond or not as it is getting very late. They are just points I would like them to take on board when they are formulating our programme to go to Brussels for acceptance. Is that okay?

Mr. David Flynn

Yes, absolutely, a Chathaoirligh. All the members have made points today and we will be considering all of those as we finalise and go back to Europe to secure the conclusion.

Mr. Jack Nolan

I add that a lot of what the Chairman said there is being considered as part of the CAP consultation around TAMS ceilings, grants and so on. A sum of €100 million has been grant-aided to dairy farmers under the previous TAMS. On the idea around contractors, the derogation is very valuable. I know I keep coming back to it but industry needs to help as well to cause change on farms because otherwise it is not going to work. Deputy Carthy raised the idea of the dairy sustainability project and what exactly is happening there. It has been shown and proven through research that advisory input at a farm level is so important and that is where we need the co-operatives to come in as well and give advice on water quality.

Chairman

Okay gentlemen. I know Deputy Leddin would like to get in again but my secretary is telling me I have gone way over time. On behalf of the committee I thank the officials for coming in to us this evening. We have had a very good discourse on the issues and a fairly long session. At our public meeting next week the Veterinary Council of Ireland and the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission will appear before us to discuss the Veterinary Practice (Amendment) Bill 2021.

The joint committee adjourned at 8.44 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 20 October 2021.

Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine díospóireacht - Wednesday, 13 Oct 2021

Nitrates Directive, Water Quality and Pollution: Discussion

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Ms Mary Gurrie

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Jenny Deakin

Dr. Jenny Deakin

Dr. Jenny Deakin

Dr. Jenny Deakin

Dr. Jenny Deakin

Dr. Jenny Deakin

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Jenny Deakin

Dr. Jenny Deakin

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Jenny Deakin

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Ms Mary Gurrie

Ms Mary Gurrie

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Ms Mary Gurrie

Dr. Jenny Deakin

Dr. Jenny Deakin

Dr. Jenny Deakin

Dr. Jenny Deakin

Dr. Jenny Deakin

Dr. Jenny Deakin

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Jenny Deakin

Dr. Jenny Deakin

Dr. Jenny Deakin

Dr. Jenny Deakin

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Ms Mary Gurrie

Ms Mary Gurrie

Ms Mary Gurrie

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Ms Mary Gurrie

Dr. Jenny Deakin

Dr. Jenny Deakin

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Jenny Deakin

Dr. Jenny Deakin

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Ms Mary Gurrie

Dr. Jenny Deakin

Dr. Eimear Cotter

Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 13 Oct 2021