JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 9 Feb 2005

EU Nitrates Directive: Presentation.

Chairman

I welcome officials from the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Health and Children to today's meeting. I also extend a welcome to delegations from Teagasc and the Environmental Protection Agency. Our colleagues on the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food have recently considered this issue. I remind members and witnesses that today's meeting will consider environmental aspects of the nitrates directive.

Before the presentations commence, I draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

We will take all four presentations together and then have a question and answer session. I invite the departmental officials to make their presentations. First we will hear Mr. Tom Corcoran and Mr. Tim Morris from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. They will be followed by a presentation from the Department of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. Tom Corcoran

Thank you. We welcome the opportunity to help brief the committee on the nitrates directive and our nitrates action programme. I have some scripted remarks which I will circulate.

By way of background, the nitrates directive was adopted in 1991 with the objective of reducing water pollution caused or induced by nitrates from agricultural sources. Since 1991 we have been implementing the directive in a number of ways, particularly through extensive monitoring of nitrate levels in waters and jointly with the Department of Agriculture and Food by the development and dissemination in 1996 of a code of good agricultural practice to protect waters from pollution by nitrates. However, judgments by the European Court of Justice in the interim have clarified that the directive required member states to establish a first action programme not later than 19 December 1995.

On foot of proceedings taken by the European Commission, the European Court of Justice delivered a judgment on 11 March 2004 that Ireland is non-compliant with the directive. The main reason was that Ireland has not fulfilled its obligations under the directive by reason of its failure to establish and implement an action programme to protect water quality against pollution by farming.

Following extensive consultations with the main farming organisations and other interested parties and the services of Mr. Denis Brosnan in a mediating role, a nitrates action programme was finalised and submitted to the European Commission on 22 October 2004. We subsequently submitted our case for a derogation from the limit for organic nitrogen spreading set out in the directive.

On 22 December 2004 the European Commission responded to our action programme by way of letter of formal notice, referred to as Article 228 letter. This indicated the Commission did not regard the action programme as being complete or compliant with the judgment of the European Court of Justice. The Commission view is that the action programme needs to be strengthened in certain respects, mainly because the prohibited periods for spreading fertiliser must be extended by two to four weeks; the minimum storage capacities for livestock manure must be increased; clear rules must be established for nutrient management of nitrogen by reference to crop needs; and the programme failed to create binding rules for farmers in that the regulations have yet to be made.

The letter of formal notice represents a further serious step in terms of infringement proceedings against Ireland. Given the adverse judgment by the European Court of Justice last March for non-compliance with the directive, it is essential for Ireland to respond adequately to the letter before the set deadline of 22 March this year.

On 26 January the Ministers for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Agriculture and Food met the four main farming organisations to brief them on the situation arising from the Commission's response. On 31 January, officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government met officials from the Commission. The discussions served to clarify and elaborate the terms of the Article 228 letter.

Regarding our derogation application, the Government gave a commitment in Sustaining Progress to seek the approval of the European Commission for an organic nitrogen limit of up to 250 kg. per hectare per annum. In keeping with this commitment an application for a derogation was submitted to the Commission on 12 November 2004. The Commission has, however, indicated that the derogation application will not be considered by it until there is a compliant action programme in place. Therefore we must first do the programme.

With regard to further legal proceedings which may follow, the Commission has stated that if agreement cannot be reached on the terms of Ireland's action programme, Ireland faces proceedings at the European Court of Justice, culminating in the imposition of daily fines plus the possibility of a financial lump sum fine. A decision to issue a reasoned opinion, which is the next step in the proceedings, could be taken as early as June 2005. In any decision to proceed to court, the Commission would decide what level of fine to seek. Depending on the outcome of a case against France which is currently before the court, the Commission could also look for the imposition of a substantial lump sum penalty.

There are other aspects of the issue and important negotiations with the Commission are pending. In June 2005 Ireland will be seeking revision of measures under the CAP rural development plan, which covers the rural environment protection scheme, REPS, compensatory allowances, forestry and the early retirement scheme. Negotiations on the next round of rural development funding, 2007-13, will also begin later this year and in all these negotiations Ireland will face severe difficulty if the nitrates issue is not resolved.

My colleague from the Department of Agriculture and Food will elaborate on these issues, particularly agricultural negotiations. We will be glad to answer any of the committee's questions.

Mr. Michael O’Donovan

As the nitrates directive relates to water quality, it is a matter in the first instance for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Nevertheless, the Department of Agriculture and Food fully shares the objective of implementing the directive in a manner which is acceptable to the European Commission. We also share the objectives of minimising the burden that compliance with the directive will place on farmers in general and safeguarding the future of commercial farming which is still a significant sector in terms of numbers and the economy.

The action programme submitted to the Commission in October 2004 was, we believe, soundly based. We were disappointed at the position taken by the Commission. However, that is where we are and we must address the reality. Mr. Corcoran explained the legal position and the prospect of fines. The other implications for the Department of Agriculture and Food are serious. Mr. Corcoran has mentioned the CAP rural development plan which is introduced in Ireland under the rural development regulation which funds four of the most important farming measures, namely, REPS, forestry, compensatory allowances and the early retirement scheme.

We intend to approach the Commission before the summer with proposals for amendments to the current rural development plan. One of these has regard to the use of modulated funds arising from the recent Fischler reforms, the other has to do with safeguarding the existing level of payment under REPS to farmers with commonage. The Commission has made it clear to us that it will not be able to proceed with the amendment if we are still in the same position as regards the nitrates directive. All four measures covered by the plan which are worth €4.6 billion to farmers in the 2000-06 period are predicated on farmers following what is defined as good farming practice. The Commission's view is that while we are not compliant with the directive, we are not adhering to good farming practice. Therefore, unless we can change the position to its satisfaction, it will not be able to proceed with the amendment to the plan.

More seriously, as Mr. Corcoran mentioned, later this year we will be in negotiations with the Commission on the next round of rural development funding for the period to 2013. Very large sums will be involved, of direct relevance to the great majority of farmers. The Commission has made it clear that unless we can advance the position on the nitrates directive, those negotiations will also be extremely difficult.

In a nutshell, while the Departments have separate priorities and concerns, we are at one.

Chairman

I thank Mr. O'Donovan. Perhaps we can now hear the views of Teagasc, represented by Dr. Séamus Crosse and Mr. Seán Regan.

Dr. Séamus Crosse

I thank the joint committee for inviting us to attend today's meeting. By way of introduction, I have circulated a one page summary. In late 2001 the Minister for Agriculture and Food asked Teagasc for its views on the best approach to implementation of the nitrates directive. The question was whether Ireland should opt for a whole country approach or individual nitrate vulnerable zones. In January 2002 Teagasc advised the Minister that, based on the scientific advice available, Ireland should opt for a whole country approach.

The next step in our involvement was taken in August 2003 when the director of Teagasc was requested by the Department of Agriculture and Food to provide technical advice for the nitrates expert committee, which consisted of technical administrative staff from both Departments. Its brief was to advise on the preparation of a draft action programme. Following its deliberations, a draft action programme was prepared by the two sponsoring Departments and presented to all the stakeholders in Tullamore on 19 December 2003.

Following consultation with the stakeholders on the draft action plan circulated in December 2003, Teagasc was again asked to provide technical advice. Paragraphs 2.3 to 2.10 of the plan, circulated on 9 July 2004, were prepared on foot of the scientific analysis and advice of Teagasc in that document.

Teagasc was then asked by the Department of Agriculture and Food to participate in a working group to prepare scientific and technical arguments for a derogation which was allowed for under the nitrates directive. Most of our work related to the preparation of this derogation document. The derogation permitted the land application of up to 250 kg. of organic nitrogen per hectare per annum from livestock manure under certain conditions. Ireland believes such a figure will not compromise the achievements of the directive and can be justified on the basis of the criteria set out in the directive, for example, a long growing season, crops with a high nitrogen uptake, high net precipitation in vulnerable zones and soils with exceptionally high de-nitrification capacity.

The group which considered the derogation argument worked from mid-June to mid-October. Strong arguments were made under headings A to D in the relevant section. An independent adviser, Mr. Denis Brosnan, was appointed by the Minister to review the written comments and report to the Minister with his recommendations. He consulted Teagasc on a number of occasions on technical matters arising from his review of the documents available to him and also his discussions with stakeholders. I recall there was one occasion where we met him as a group. He also telephoned us on a few occasions.

A nitrates action programme was submitted to the Commission on 22 October 2004 which reflected the recommendations made in the Brosnan report. The application for the derogation under the nitrates directive was submitted to the Commission on 12 November by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Chairman

I call on the Environmental Protection Agency which is represented by Dr. Paul Toner, Mr. Larry Stapleton, Dr. Matthew Crowe and Mr. Dara Lynott.

Mr. Larry Stapleton

I thank the Chairman and the joint committee for the invitation to the Environmental Protection Agency to attend this meeting. We are pleased to have this opportunity to provide information for the committee.

As our main role has been to provide environmental data, we have circulated a written presentation to the committee on nitrates in the Irish aquatic environment. By way of introduction, rather than going through the document in detail, I propose to highlight some of the main points and will briefly mention a few of the EPA's other activities that are relevant in the context of the directive.

Nitrate is a natural constituent of waters, whereas on land it is one of the primary nutrients required by growing plants. Agricultural fertilisers and animal waste have been identified as the chief causes of nitrate enrichment in waters in many European countries and the United States. The EPA has estimated that four out of every five tonnes of nitrogen entering Irish waters come from agriculture, with the balance coming mainly from domestic industrial wastewater and background sources.

The usual reasons for concern about raised nitrate levels in waters, depending on the levels reached, are public health risks concerning drinking water and eutrophication, that is, over-enrichment of surface waters. In order to minimise the public health risk to infants from drinking water, a limit of 11.3 milligrams per litre of nitrate, when expressed as nitrogen N, has been adopted in EU directives. A guide limit of 5.6 mg/litre N was also adopted. As regards preventing eutrophication, the natural levels of nitrate are variable in waters but generally likely to be less than 2 mg/litre in most fresh waters and between 0.1 and 0.2 mg/litre in offshore marine waters.

We have also provided information on the national monitoring of nitrates in waters. I will mention some of the key results in this regard. Results from selected rivers in the south and south east and, for comparison, the River Shannon are shown in the diagram we have provided. They illustrate some key points on nitrate concentrations in Irish rivers. The highest values occur in the rivers of the south east. Nitrates reached their highest levels in the late 1990s and have since reduced to some extent.

As regards groundwaters, the results from the national monitoring programme most recently reviewed showed that 23% of samples taken had nitrate concentrations equal to or greater than the EU guideline value for drinking waters. Samples from 11 locations exceeded the mandatory limit. As regards tidal waters, the EPA has established that waters in ten of Ireland's tidal inlets — mainly on the east, south-east and south coasts — are subject to eutrophication in that they have raised nutrient levels, raised plankton levels and dissolved oxygen levels outside the levels set.

While the main focus of the presentation was to inform the committee of the situation in respect of nitrates in Ireland's surface waters and groundwaters, there are various other ways in which our work relates to the nitrates directive. The EPA administers a major environmental research programme and has funded several research projects for the water environment and the factors influencing it. It compiles annual reports on the quality of drinking water, urban wastewater discharges and the implementation of the phosphorus regulations. It also invites comments on discussion documents issued by Departments. We regulate large industry and similar activities that could otherwise give rise to environmental pollution. We have an overseeing role in the implementation by local authorities of their environmental functions.

If there are any questions relating to these matters, my colleagues and I will respond to them, depending on the issues involved.

Deputy Hayes

The EPA stated the level of nitrogen in waterways was highest in the 1990s. Does it have figures for all years?

Mr. Stapleton

Monitoring programmes were put in place in the early 1980s. The figures to which I referred would be the results of monitoring from the early 1980s up to last year. One can see from the diagram that they show a steady increase in nitrogen levels in most waters up to the late 1990s when they reached their peak. However, we have seen reductions since, as is evident from the figures for the three year period up to last year.

Deputy Hayes

Has the EPA carried out research and monitored the farms that participate in the REP scheme because the farmers concerned must adhere to the standards set out in the REPS plan which would not allow as much nitrogen into waterways?

Mr. Stapleton

With Teagasc, we have co-funded a significant environmental research project which is due to report to us in the next few months. Teagasc led the project in which the experts from all the universities are represented.

Deputy Hayes

From the EPA submission, it appears the major source of water pollution is nitrates from agricultural sources. What are the other sources of the problem? Do the local authorities cause pollution?

Mr. Stapleton

We carried out a review of sources of nitrates into the environment at the time we conducted our State of the Environment report in 2000. We used internationally accepted approaches in determining the results which showed that 83% of nitrates entering Irish waters came from agricultural sources——

Deputy Hayes

In what year was the review carried out?

Mr. Stapleton

It was our millennium report, produced in the year 2000. Roughly four out of every five tonnes of nitrate entering the Irish environment came from agriculture.

Deputy Hayes

Five years later, has the figure dropped significantly?

Mr. Stapleton

It may have dropped somewhat because of the reduced use of fertilisers and a reduction in livestock numbers. However, from the levels of these reductions, one would not expect a major shift.

Deputy Hayes

Farming practices have changed drastically in recent years. With the implementation of new schemes, the methods of production will change. Should Teagasc and the Department put a different argument to the European Union on the implementation of EU directives now that agricultural practices have changed? The fear among farmers in general is that the nitrates directive will destroy their business. I ask Teagasc and the Department to take this on board. Have they assessed the effect of implementation of the directive?

Mr. O’Donovan

I will start and my colleague, Mr. Matt Sinnott, might wish to add to what I say.

The Department of Agriculture and Food has analysed the likely effects of the proposals we circulated in December 2003, to which Dr. Crosse, director of agriculture research at Teagasc, referred. The majority of farmers should have no great difficulty in complying with the directive because they are already operating at or well below the general limit of 170 kg. of organic nitrogen per hectare laid down in the directive. Some farmers — we are trying to ascertain the number from a farm facilities survey undertaken by Teagasc on behalf of the Department — must make an additional investment in storage facilities, if they maintain their existing stocking levels. As an alternative, some may decide to reduce their stocking levels which they can do after decoupling without affecting their single payment entitlement.

The cohort who will be most directly affected by the directive are those engaged in intensive farming, predominantly in the dairy sector. The number stands between 10,000 and 13,000 farmers, depending on how one looks at the figures. We are conscious that this is an issue for them. It is and always has been the Minister's priority to safeguard the future of the commercial sector. Inevitably, there must be additional investment and additional control on the more intensive farmers. We do not see it as a doomsday scenario for even the most commercial of farmers but it will certainly have some implications for them.

Deputy Hayes

Has the Department assessed the effect the directive will have on the incomes of farmers? The reason the numbers in farming are falling drastically is the level of income one can make. Many farmers take the view that implementation of the nitrates directive will be the finality. However, the fear might be worse that what will happen when it is implemented. The farmers who are most fearful are the commercial dairy farmers in the south and south east. Has the Department carried out an income assessment?

Dr. Crosse

As part of the argument on derogation presented to the Commission, we have stressed the importance for good commercial farming and that we need a derogation up to 250 kg. of organic matter. As part of the documents, we carried out an income assessment. What it shows is that about 70% of dairy farmers are within the 170 kg. limit. Of the remaining 30%, approximately 10% would be 10% worse off as a result of the directive and a further number, approximately between 8% and 10%, would experience a drop in income of between 10% and 20%. About 5% would experience a drop in income of 20%. We have made estimates of the income effects of the directive. The case has been argued as a justification for a derogation for intensive dairy farmers.

Other groups which are important are intensive pig farmers and the mushroom industry. The case is also made for the need to get organic manure onto farms in order that these enterprises can survive into the future.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

: I welcome the visitors to the joint committee. This is a very important discussion on the impact of the nitrates directive on the economy. I understand of the 130,000 farmers registered as being full-time, 20,000, who are commercial farmers, will be seriously affected by the directive. I am aware the European Commission has rejected the proposal sent to Brussels some weeks ago.

Will someone elaborate on the letter of rejection that came from Brussels? I am aware the Attorney General has advised on the legal limitations but it is not all that confidential. Intensive dairy farming probably causes most pollution, followed by pig farming, poultry farming, grain growers and the mushroom industry.

What is the situation regarding septic tanks in rural areas where there is a lack of soakage and huge levels of pollution? A nitrogen leak, whether organic or otherwise, from septic tanks into groundwater is serious. As a representative dealing with the public, I received a complaint in recent days from a farmer who had two septic tanks which pumped onto his land. He was concerned about the effects of the nitrates directive. I come from the Glanworth area, of which Dr. Seamus Cross is aware. It is a high nitrogen zone where there is continuous monitoring. Huge expense is imposed on intensive farmers by the EPA and others in terms of having to bore wells. It is getting out of control with regard to the expense placed on the farmers concerned.

The Danish model, accepted in Brussels, has been for a nutrient management plan by all the farmers of Denmark. Danish farmers must provide for 12 months storage capacity. A high level of grant aid is paid by the Danish Government to alleviate the problems experienced by the agricultural industry which is of huge importance to the Danish economy.

Storage levels represent a substantial cost, as will the spreading of effluent on the land. Spreading must be done in many areas of the country by 1 February. Others have a longer timeframe in terms of storage. What happens if one cannot dispose of effluent in that period of time? Tillage land such as wheat or barley ground is available for spreading. Most winter grain is sown in October when effluent can be spread on the land and ploughed using new technology. It is important that October is removed from the calendar as a month for spreading. Sugar beet is another crop which can take huge volumes of effluent, especially pig slurry. This whole area could be teased out and developed. The Irish situation may be different from others in that we have a high level of rainfall. I am just making the point about spreading in certain areas and zones. This is a matter for the EPA.

The other matter is inconsistency. Many places are licensed, others are not. One's neighbour can spread slurry on Christmas Day while another cannot because he or she has a licence. That neighbour is highly controlled by the EPA, his or her actions are illegal and liable for prosecution. There is an inconsistency which must be addressed. The authorities in Brussels are well aware of what is happening in Ireland and quite embarrassed.

There is much nonsense spoken about earthen banks and lagoons for the storage of effluent. They will not work. I say this as a farmer and someone who has been lobbied by farmers. We are aware of the history of earthen lagoons in places such as North and South Carolina and Iowa, the mainly intensive farming area of North America. I read on the Internet that they had been broken down and effluent had been poured all over these states contaminating groundwater. If we are going to do it, we must do it right. However, we must respect the 20,000 intensive commercial farmers as we do with the dairy, pig, poultry, mushroom or grain sectors. We must protect these 20,000 farmers with regard to the nitrates directive. The issue will get out of control and there are high cost factors. We will be in serious trouble at the farming level.

The water framework directive is coming up shortly, which is why I made reference to the issue of septic tanks. Groundwater is boreable in that the island is situated on water. I congratulate the Chairman on his appointment and commend him for having this discussion. The issue will have an enormous effect on the farming community and the economy.

Chairman

I thank the Deputy. There have been some questions for the EPA. If representatives would like to respond, they should feel free to do so.

Mr. Dara Lynott

The agency is responsible for licensing intensive pig facilities under the integrated pollution prevention control directive. That brings in large pig producers. As part of our role in regulating them, the EPA requires land spreading associated with pig activities to be done in accordance with a nutrient management plan. At its simplest level, the plan will ensure the availability of the nutrients the crops need to grow at an optimum level provided nothing is spread on the land that would cause pollution.

With regard to our role and the issue of inconsistencies, unfortunately, the agency is in a position whereby it can only license in accordance with law. Therefore, land spreading by other activities does not come within its remit.

With regard to septic tanks and the loss of nitrates to the aquatic environment, four out of every five tonnes come from agriculture. There are a number of other causes which include urban wastewater, forestry and peat lands as well as background run-off. There is also the issue of rural households. We are doing a lot of work on septic tanks, an issue on which my colleague, Dr. Matthew Crowe, will elaborate.

Dr. Matthew Crowe

We have concerns about the array of single house treatment systems used for one-off housing. We have produced guidance on various single house treatment systems, including septic tanks. This is now used by local authorities when arriving at decisions as to where septic tanks should be located. The siting, construction and maintenance of septic tanks is a serious issue about which we are concerned and which we are addressing through the guidance we produce.

Deputy McCormack

Dr. Crosse's one page document is very well presented. Item No. 4 deals with the question of a derogation and the use of up to 250 kg. of organic nitrogen per hectare per annum. What is the result of his request and does it have to be clarified before the deadline of 22 March?

Dr. Crosse

My understanding is that the derogation document will not be considered until the action programme has been agreed.

Deputy McCormack

That is putting the cart before the horse. The programme will be agreed on a different level. Should there not first be a decision regarding the derogation before anything is agreed? It is hard to agree to something if one does not know what the limits will be.

Mr. Corcoran

It was not our decision. It is the decision of the Commission not to consider the derogation. It has taken the firm view that unless we have an overall nitrates action plan, it will not allow us a derogation. We are trying to do this. We will be pressing it to consider it quickly if we can come to an agreement with it on the main plan.

Deputy McCormack

Is it the Commission that decides on directives? There were several earlier directives and rules about matters such as REPS under which livestock had to be taken off the land between the months of November and March, depending on the part of the country involved. This adds to the need for further storage facilities. I am speaking more about the west than intensive dairy and pig farming areas. The more one moves away from natural agricultural practices, the greater the difficulty one creates.

It has been indicated that animal waste is the greatest source of nitrate pollution. Is there any overall body that considers Commission directives? The Commission seems to make one rule one year and then issue another directive penalising people for complying with that rule another year. Does anybody consider that aspect of EU directives?

Mr. O’Donovan

The nitrates directive dates from 1991. Directives are proposed by the Commission but must have the agreement of representatives of member states at working party level before they are finally signed off by the Commissioners.

The Deputy mentioned REPS. The conditions of REPS had to be proposed in outline and accepted by the Commission before the scheme was introduced. The more detailed specification was then drawn up by the Department.

Deputy McCormack

One directive tells farmers to take their cattle off the land and to use slurry pits and storage and another tells them that stored effluent cannot be spread upon the land except at certain times and under certain conditions. However, I will drop that issue for now.

I wish to defend one-off rural housing because it has been indicated that it gives the least offence with regard to nitrates and creates far less offence than local authorities. Many local authorities, including some in my area, pump raw sewage from towns and villages into our waterways. Galway city, with a population of 75,000 to 80,000 people pumped its raw sewage into the waterways up to two years ago. Therefore, I do not want to hear about septic tanks being a cause of pollution when local authorities, perhaps through no fault of their own, do not get any or adequate funding to provide sewerage facilities in their rapidly expanding towns and villages, especially now that most county development plans have adopted town and village plans which will allow for the expansion of those towns and villages without any provision for adequate sewage treatment plants.

I understand that there was up to €250 million of an underspend in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government last year, yet towns and villages and local authorities throughout the country were crying out for finance to provide sewerage facilities. The lack of these facilities is a major cause of pollution of our waterways, no matter what anybody says. I would like a response on this issue.

Mr. Corcoran

This concerns a different directive. As the Deputy says, there are many directives from the European Union. Discharges by local authorities are subject to the urban wastewater treatment directive and in recent years we have taken great strides to come up to scratch in that regard.

Deputy McCormack

Are local authorities covered in the nitrates directive? If they discharge nitrates into our waterways, is that pollution not contrary to the directive?

Mr. Corcoran

No, it is not contrary to the directive.

Deputy McCormack

Are the local authorities exempt?

Mr. Corcoran

No, the nitrates directive deals with pollution from agricultural sources——

Deputy McCormack

Yes, which finishes up in waterways.

Mr. Corcoran

The urban wastewater treatment directive requires, for instance, that wastewater discharges to fresh waters from agglomerations exceeding a population equivalent of 2,000 to have secondary treatment facilities in place by 31 December 2005, prior to discharge.

We have spent €1.5 billion on building new wastewater treatment plants since 2000. Our overall compliance with the deadline — only 25% of these agglomerations could meet the deadline in 2000 — is now well over 90% and by the end of this year we will hit the deadline. The €1.5 billion we have spent is a major investment, in parallel with the nitrates action programme, to deal with the problem rightly identified by Deputy McCormack. This is another source of pollution. In today's terms agriculture forms 80% of the source of pollution, but there are other sources which must be tackled also. Major investment is going into tackling them.

Deputy McCormack

I appreciate the clarification of the separation of the local authorities from the nitrates directive and the statement with regard to the €1.5 billion spent. What was the cause of the underspend in the Department last year where the amount of underspend would have done all the sewerage facilities required for County Galway? Why is there an underspend if the work required is so urgent?

Mr. Corcoran

The underspend related only to water where in a programme of €450 million there was an underspend of €30 million. This was largely due to the fact that projects sponsored by local authorities — they are not delivered by the Department — did not come on stream when due. We have kept that money, by way of an envelope, for spending this year. We ensured that local authorities were not short of money last year. If they could spend it, the money was there for them. It will be the same this year. If they can spend the money, there is more than enough for them.

Deputy McCormack

I am glad the money was kept. I am sure it will be spent before the next election.

Senator Bannon

I join others in welcoming the personnel from the Departments of Agriculture and Food and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and from Teagasc and the Environmental Protection Agency to this meeting to discuss the implications of the rejection of the nitrates directive plan put forward by Mr. Brosnan.

Was Mr. Brosnan invited to today's meeting and what level of consultation did he have with Teagasc and the various farm organisations? It was stated that he consulted with Teagasc on a number of occasions with regard to technical matters arising from the directive. What level of consultation was there before his proposals were submitted to Brussels?

Mr. O'Donovan stated that the majority of farmers are in a position to comply with the nitrates directive. The estimate from the various farm organisations is that a grant package of approximately €1 billion is required to ensure compliance. However, to date there has been no grants package provided and there is no final action plan with regard to how the directive will be implemented.

The issue of by-laws has been on the cards in a number of local authority areas in close proximity to river catchment areas. Many of the by-laws have not been implemented by local authorities throughout the country because they know the effect they would have on farmers trying to comply with them. May we have some indication with regard to the implementation of by-laws by local authorities?

Deputy McCormack and others touched on the issue of septic tanks. I do not consider that issue a major problem. What is a problem is the lack of sewerage schemes for small villages and towns. This has been a problem for many years. In areas that had incentives, such as the rural renewal scheme or tax relief scheme, major developments have taken place where proper infrastructure was not in place. The issue of proper infrastructure has not been dealt with by the Government or the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Perhaps we can have some elaboration on these points. Farmers must be assisted in coping with the significant costs they face regarding the implementation of the nitrates directive.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I understand the deadline for the submission of our proposal to Brussels is 31 March 2005, otherwise we will be in trouble again and have to pay a fine.

At present, according to EPA regulations, those involved in intensive farming have to provide a nutrient management plan. I understand a Danish proposal has been accepted and they have got a derogation based on new research carried out on their farms. I have spoken to the people in Brussels who are involved in this matter.

Senator Bannon

There is no incentive for people who have lived in their homes for 30 or 40 years to connect to sewerage schemes in towns and villages if no grant package is available. This would also cause major disruption as the conventional septic tank is located at the back of the house. One would have to rip up the front of the house to get to the mains. It would be wise of the Department to introduce a grants scheme to enable and encourage people to connect to sewerage schemes.

Mr. Corcoran

I thank Senator Bannon. It is my understanding that Mr. Brosnan consulted very widely——

Deputy Cregan

And wisely.

Mr. Corcoran

And wisely. He consulted with the farming organisations, the Department and Teagasc. He also consulted with the Commission. He spoke to everybody whom he thought could make a contribution. His role was essentially a mediating one. Nobody got everything they wanted from it. He brought many people together and consulted widely.

Senator Bannon referred to the lack of sewerage schemes, especially in towns and small villages. In our current three-year programme, 2004-06, the water services investment programme is dealing with 869 schemes worth some €5 billion. A great deal of money is being spent in the areas of construction and planning. We are taking a major stride forward in resourcing and addressing the undoubted need that exists.

Senator Bannon

Has the Department prioritised towns and villages with river catchment areas? The River Shannon catchment area is one such example. Many towns and villages in close proximity to the River Shannon do not have proper sewerage facilities in place.

Mr. Corcoran

In the first place, the local authority, as the water service authority, does the prioritisation. When a local authority comes to us with 25 projects, we let it prioritise the schemes, as it is in the best position to do so. We then reflect that in our priorities.

Senator Bannon

Many local authorities are strapped for cash which impacts on the implementation of schemes.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I thought this meeting was about the nitrates directive. I would like to hear from all three members of the panel.

Mr. O’Donovan

As Deputy O'Keeffe said, we are due to respond to the Commission by 22 March. We are still working on the terms of the response. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government intends to consult again with various stakeholders in preparing the response.

I do not expect that we would propose that every farmer should have a nutrient management plan. From talking to the Commission we know that it envisages different levels of controls and restrictions depending on the level of a farmer's activities. It would be prepared to entertain less restrictive rules and controls for the more extensive farmers who are already well below the general 170 kg. limit. However, as Dr. Crosse has already described in some detail, we have made a proposal to the Commission for a derogation for the more intensive farmers who are operating above the 170 kg. limit. It is almost certain that the Commission would require nutrient management planning for those farmers.

Senator Bannon raised the issue of the €1 billion cost to farmers of compliance with the directive. That is a speculative figure. The farm facilities survey, which is still being brought to a conclusion on our behalf by Teagasc should give us a clearer indication. The figure of €1 billion which is coming from the farming organisations is based on a set of assumptions not on solid data. A point which the farm bodies have been making strongly, and I noted Deputy O'Keeffe's views on it, is the need to provide for alternative systems of storage such as earthen bank tanks. The farm bodies would contend that this would cost farmers a great deal less and would adequately meet many of the requirements. Teagasc is considering the issue and we expect to get its conclusions fairly shortly.

A grant package — the farm waste management scheme — is available and has been in existence for a number of years. This year's provision is €39 million, which is double what was spent last year. It is a demand-led scheme and take-up was low last year. As things stand, and following a concession to the farming bodies in Sustaining Progress, the farm waste management scheme is available to almost any farmer and offers 40% grant aid towards the cost of investment. That package is still there and will continue for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Sean Regan

To add a little to what Michael O'Donovan has said, in addition to some farmers getting a derogation, it is clear that they would require a nutrient plan. We have to take into account that up to 45,000 farmers are in the REP scheme and that at this stage they all have a nutrient plan. The number of farmers in the scheme will probably rise to 50,000 or 55,000. The remaining farmers will be quite extensive and simple record keeping would probably be all that would be required of them, which would not entail a complex nutrient management plan. It is only a relatively small number of farmers who would require a derogation.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Could I have the view of the EPA?

Mr. Lynott

The EPA's view is that nutrient management planning would be best practice for farming. It saves money for the farmer in terms of fertiliser and optimises crop growth. This must be done with due care and attention, which means watching out for rivers, rock outcrops and taking account of the quality of surface water and ground water in one's area. It is a win-win for all concerned. We would definitely support any moves to expand that to all farmers. This view is in line with previously published guidance by Teagasc on REPS.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

The pig industry is very important to the country. It is the biggest sector after dairying. The Cavan and Monaghan area exports its effluent to the tillage areas of the midlands. How is it proposed to deal with this situation in the context of a derogation when slurry is being spread in Westmeath, Laois or Offaly? The slurry is often transported a long distance. The second biggest area of pig production is in north and west Cork. If protection is not built in for the pig industry we will not have any pig industry. We will be reduced to subsistence farming which would not be in the best interest of the economy. How does the EPA propose to tackle the effluent from the pig and poultry industry which is based in certain areas of the country?

Deputy O’Dowd

Like other members I welcome the fine array of experts who form the collective wisdom of the State. However, it has failed in that Mr. Brosnan's report on which he consulted with everybody does not meet the requirements.

Dr. Crosse stated that 70% of farmers do not cause problems, it is only 30% who are in that category.

Dr. Crosse

That was in terms of the incomes that would be affected. We are mainly talking about dairy farmers and 70% of those would be below 170 kg. anyway. In income terms they would not be affected.

Deputy O’Dowd

I may have misunderstood Dr. Crosse. The point I was trying to make is, if it would make sense to look at different geographical patterns of agriculture in the country.

For example, Deputy O'Keeffe suggested that in respect of counties Cavan and Monaghan which are close to County Louth, special concessions could be made to specific areas in which there are certain types of land or agriculture practiced. This relates particularly to grants, the maximum value of which, I believe, is 40%. In areas such as this one could give a much higher grant to keep in business people who have a particular problem with pollution.

Mr. Corcoran has referred to the problems small towns have with sewerage schemes. I welcome the excellent programme of investment in such schemes which the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has undertaken. The difficulty is that the work is sometimes frustrated by local authorities which rezone large tracts of land where the existing sewerage system does not have the capacity to accommodate new housing developments.

In growing areas on the east coast local authorities can create a development plan and decide, as happened in County Louth, to double the size of a village, to the limit of its sewage treatment plant. However, no one examines the long-term damage such a development will do to a community. Against this background, is there a new role for the EPA in examining specific rezonings in development plans identified by the local authority concerned?

We must have a clean and safe environment. Sometimes rezoning decisions are incompatible with the capacity of sewerage systems, notwithstanding the excellent programme of investment undertaken by the Department. A discussion about this issue has commenced in County Laois. It is clear that we need to examine not just the views of councillors and planners but also the capacity of such planning decisions to secure a safe and clean environment. Given that radical changes will have to be made to comply with EU directives and prevent legal processes being mounted against Ireland, can the officials tell us what significant steps are being taken to this end?

Deputy Cregan

I welcome members of the delegation, officials of the Departments of Agriculture and Food and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and representatives of Teagasc and the EPA.

Mr. O'Donovan mentioned that the aim at the start was to satisfy the Commission and to protect farmers by minimising the impact on them. He also stated he felt the application and submission were soundly based, with which I agree. It protected the interests of farmers and we all felt it would satisfy the Commission. Therefore, it follows that if we have to change the provisions and impose further restrictions, it would not be soundly based. I am concerned that we would have to impose additional restrictions on the farming community.

I am also concerned about the timescale, particularly in regard to the manner in which business was done on the last occasion when it was very wise of the Minister to appoint Mr. Denis Brosnan as a mediator or facilitator. He sat down with all interested parties and facilitated an agreed submission on the nitrates directive to Brussels. Given the short period involved on this occasion, do the officials feel the same accommodation will be afforded to interested parties and will Mr. Brosnan or someone else be made available to mediate and facilitate?

A meeting held on 26 January with the Ministers for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Agriculture and Food with the IFA, ICMSA, ICOS and Macra na Feirme was referred to. Will the officials inform the committee what transpired at that meeting and what was its outcome? I am concerned that there is a very wide gap between the positions of the interested parties and that sought by Brussels. It would be useful to have an idea of what was said at the meeting and how it ended.

Another meeting was held on 31 January between departmental officials and the Commission. The document states the discussions served to clarify and elaborate on the terms of the Article 228 letter sent by the Commission. Will one of the officials clarify to the committee the clarifications and inform us of the worst case scenario?

I am concerned about the storage facility aspect of the nitrates directive. I agree with Senator Bannon's comment that farmers will find it extremely difficult to comply with the directive in the absence of financial grant aid from the Department. In many cases, of which I am aware, farmers in County Limerick and other parts of the country do not have the necessary storage space for slurry required by the directive. The fact that storage capacity would have to increase was referred to but does this mean two weeks or four? Can we assure farmers that we will try to secure agreement on a two week rather than a four week storage period? I look forward to hearing the delegation's responses to my comments.

Deputy Gilmore

I welcome the representatives before the committee and apologise for my late arrival but I have read the presentations. The timeframe within which we are operating seems to be a five minutes to midnight position. The Commission has set a date of 25 March for the receipt of a reply but I am unclear on what must be done by that date. Is it telling us that it wants a formal response from Ireland by 25 March which could subsequently be the subject of discussions, or is it seeking complete agreement on the plan by that date?

I am a little surprised at the reference in Mr. Corcoran's notes which suggests that the Commission would move towards a reasoned opinion as quickly as June this year. On what information is this suggestion based? How confident are the respective Departments that agreement on the plan will be reached by 25 March or at least that the Commission will be satisfied with whatever response is given by then in order that it will not seek a reasoned opinion and proceed with the case to the Court of Justice?

Chairman

I am reluctant to interrupt the Deputy but a vote has been called in the Dáil. I apologise to our guests but is it agreed to suspend the sitting for approximately 20 minutes? Agreed.

Sitting suspended at 11.50 a.m. and resumed at 12.15 p.m.

Deputy Gilmore

I was asking about the date of 25 March and what exactly the Commission is seeking by that date. The relevant sentence says: "The Commission has however indicated that the derogation application will not be considered until there is a compliant action programme in place." If agreement is reached on that programme, does it then follow that there will be a derogation, or what is the expectation? In its comment in the note on the nitrates action programme the Commission says that "the express reference to 250 kg. represents a self-granted derogation". Are we in the situation that whatever the Commission agrees to, it will not agree to the figure given? Is that what is coming through? If so, have we to some extent shot ourselves in the foot by establishing a target figure and subsequently seeking Commission agreement to it?

Deputy Moynihan

I welcome those who have come here today to give us information on the nitrates directive. I know of a young farmer taking over a holding which is not fully stocked. There is a quota on it for cattle and sheep. He has applied to the Department for the grant for which he qualifies. In the plan he has drawn up he is proposing to build more storage than is needed for the number of animals currently on the holding. I am not sure if he has given me the correct information but he says he has been told he will be penalised in terms of the grant because of his plan to build excess storage space. I would like to know if this is accurate. I hope not.

Chairman

There are questions there for everyone. We will start with questions directed to the Department of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. O’Donovan

When I finish, I will ask my colleague, Mr. Sinnott, to respond to the question asked by Deputy O'Keeffe about the situation of pig and poultry farmers who need to export slurry. Deputy O'Dowd talked about regional variation and the action programme as submitted does envisage a certain amount of such variation. He also asked about the possibility of higher grants because of the cost of investment in those regions. That was covered by Mr. Brosnan in his recommendations. All we can say at this stage is that it is being considered. Until we know where we stand, and know what the Commission will settle for, we will not be able to put a figure on the cost of any such change, which could be substantial.

Deputy Cregan made the point that if the action programme we submitted was soundly based and if the Commission insists on a tighter one then by definition it will not be soundly based. We are at the point where we will have to make a defence. Mr. Corcoran will respond to the question about exactly what the Commission said in its response. The Commission has identified various matters on which it wants us to move further. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has said that we will be defending the position we have taken on the basis of science. We will be doing that and the discussions will become quite detailed and technical at that stage. We hope that what we come up with will still be scientifically and practically soundly based.

Deputy Cregan also asked about the meeting with the Commission. Apart from myself, Mr. Morris is the only other person here who was present at that meeting and I can say briefly what went on there. The two Departments began by telling the Commission we were disappointed with its position and that we believed we submitted a reasonable and sound action programme. The Commission then outlined to us exactly what the next steps would be.

I will take up one of Deputy Gilmore's questions. When we say that it is possible that the Commission could decide to issue a reasoned opinion as soon as June, we are directly quoting what it told us. There will be a quarterly meeting of the Commission in June and that is when decisions of that nature are taken. There will be a meeting at the end of March but as the Commission accepts that it will only just have got our response by then, it would be too soon to make a decision. The Commission envisages that the decision could be taken at the June meeting.

Mr. Corcoran has already described the kind of penalties we could be facing. Eventually, if we do not implement the directive to the Commission's satisfaction, there is a substantial daily fine and the possibility of back-dating. At the meeting we attended, the Commission also outlined the implications for our rural development plan and for any amendments we might want to make to it. The fact is that we will get nowhere until we have implemented the directive to the satisfaction of the Commission.

Some points of detail were explored in the Commission's letter of 22 December. It explained why it said what it said and what it would be looking for from us to persuade the members to change their views. None of those points were greatly significant.

Regarding the derogation mentioned by Deputy Gilmore, the Commission reiterated at our meeting that it would not consider the derogation proposal until it had dealt with the action programme. When it talks of a self-granted derogation of 250kg. that is a sort of legalistic objection to the fact that we referred to it in the action programme. The Commission will not entertain any reference to the derogation until the action programme is settled but we have no reason to believe that we will not then succeed in getting the 250kg. derogation.

I do not know the details of the case outlined by Deputy Moynihan and if he supplies me with them I will check the matter and get back to him. To my relief, that is all I have to say and Mr. Sinnott may be able to take over.

Mr. Matt Sinnott

Deputy O'Keeffe has highlighted one of the most difficult problems we will face in the implementation of the nitrates directive. Those in the pig and poultry sector probably have inadequate lands on which to spread the slurry produced. The derogation document prepared by Teagasc and the two Departments basically involved seeking a higher limit for organic nitrogen. It is mainly aimed at farms which are probably 70% grass, which is why we restricted it to such. We would have a major problem for our pig and poultry people because most would not have the adequate grassland figure. In our document we say that we need to get a derogation for up to 6,000 additional farmers who could take in pig and poultry manure as a means of replacing some chemical fertiliser. The difficulty is that the Commission is inclined to say that there is no derogation for pig farmers per se so we are really talking about cattle farmers and tillage farmers. The latter are not a problem in this regard. If cattle farmers want to take in additional pig and poultry manure to offset the import of chemical fertilisers they would have to be seeking a derogation.

There is another requirement in the action programme, namely, that one can use nutrients only in accordance with crop requirements. That is where the difficulty will arise from the pig producers' point of view. Most cattle farmers will have a restricted need for additional slurry tanks because of the phosphorous content of slurry on their holdings. We recognise that we have a major problem to address. I have been encouraging pig producers indirectly via Teagasc and others, saying we must seriously examine the processing of manure to enable us to remove the excess nutrients in counties Cavan and Monaghan, for example, to the tillage area.

Some years ago — before my time — I believe we had a scheme for subsidising the transport of slurry but it proved so costly that it had to be suspended. The industry is aware that we must start looking seriously at alternative processing mechanisms that would, one hopes, reduce the volume of liquid to be transported. Slurry with a higher dry matter content could be transported more economically to tillage areas. I know of one company — I believe in Monaghan — which is considering a system of anaerobic digestion and wastewater treatment. This is being grant-aided under the LIFE programme operated by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Big money is being spent on a plant in which we are taking a keen interest. If it works, we will probably have a similar solution for the pig producers.

We are also aware of a system to separate liquids and solids being operated in Normandy, France. We would be interested in companies which could provide such a system. We have money in the farm waste management scheme for a pilot processing project. We do not yet have a scheme up and running but are examining devising some system to encourage those with such technology to commence a demonstration project. Deputy Ned O'Keeffe has hit the nail on the head in that regard. It is a major problem to which, unfortunately, we do not yet have the answers.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

The Danes have 20 million pigs in an area smaller than Munster. That is five times the Irish pig population, yet the Danes' programme has been agreed by Brussels. Have the Departments and the EPA examined what is happening in the Danish pig industry? It is a very large employer. As I said, we will return to subsistence agriculture in this country if we fail to address the issue of intensive farming. The capital costs have been looked at. For the equipment and machinery to perform the separation, drying and so on, they would be prohibitive and would not justify the return.

Mr. Sinnott

We are well aware of the types of systems in operation in Denmark. They have some similar anaerobic digestion plants in Germany.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Have we looked at what the Danes have done? There are 20 million pigs in Denmark but only three million in Ireland, although Denmark is only the size of Munster. The Danes have seven times as many as we have but Brussels has accepted Danish implementation of the directive and granted it a derogation.

Mr. Sinnott

As the Deputy has said, the economics of processing are very doubtful, unless someone is prepared to provide incentives for the production of green energy using the anaerobic process. This has been examined numerous times in recent years but we still do not have any initiative to provide grant-aid or an incentive for green energy production. The EPA might have more knowledge but as I understand the Danish system, it is very dependent on being amalgamated with the treatment of urban waste. If I am not mistaken, they also have the advantage that they are able to use a great deal of heat energy for local heating systems.

Most of these factors that would make the practice viable are probably not applicable to the Irish context. For a start, we are not into area heating systems and if one can use the heat adequately, one has an economic system. However, in the absence of being able to treat the heat and an incentive for green electricity, the economics in Ireland simply do not stack up. That is why we are saying that if we examined separation, we might at least get the dry matter that could be transported. That just might work but currently we do not have an answer.

Chairman

We have to vacate the room at 12.45 p.m. After Senator Callanan's question, we will take the responses from the other members.

Senator Callanan

I have an interest in what the delegation is talking about. Deputy Ned O'Keeffe is correct in that production is by both the pig and poultry industries. However, we should be aware that anaerobic digestion is in. Planning permission has been granted for intensive pig farming. I am also aware that the EPA has done some work on the matter while Dr. John Curtis has conducted substantial research.

There should be a cross-departmental approach from the energy point of view. There are many in my constituency in west Cork who have been operating the system for the past 30 years or so. Therefore, it should not be new to any Department. Energy, the environment and agriculture must be brought together. The solution of the future is regional anaerobic digestion. Deputy Ned O'Keeffe referred to the intensity of pig production in Denmark. That is correct but they are using that system. On the issue of storage, I am vehemently opposed to the Deputy's position. I am totally in favour of the Upton lagoons. There is one in the Deputy's area, only 20 miles from him. They said they would last 20 years without creating a problem.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I had one myself at one time. I closed it when the EPA stated——

Senator Callanan

Good. The delegation is talking about cost, storage and spreading. Lateral spreading is out; whether we like it, it will be gone in five years. New approaches are required today.

Mr. Corcoran

I come back to a point made by Deputy Gilmore. He asked what the Commission expected of us by 22 March, a date which is not far off. It really wants a substantive response. It is not feasible for us to produce a nitrates action programme but the response must be substantive and address the main issues. The nature of that response must be agreed by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Minister for Agriculture and Food. It will then go to the Government as a whole for approval, something that happened with the original nitrates action programme before submission to the Commission. We will have to do this again in order that the approach is agreed by the Government.

Deputy Gilmore also raised the issue of whether we could reasonably expect a derogation; I think we can. I know the Commission is playing hard ball with us and refusing to consider this. However, if we can satisfy it with the nitrates action programme, there will be a derogation which is crucial to the more intensive farmers who will be most directly affected by the general nitrates action plan. The derogation is part of the solution and will ultimately be offered.

Chairman

Has Teagasc anything to add?

Dr. Crosse

No.

Mr. Stapleton

Mention was made of the work the EPA has done on centralised anaerobic digestion, on which we have just published a paper as a contribution to the discussion on how such waste should be dealt with. Anaerobic digestion relates to renewable energy, greenhouse gas emissions, odours, nutrient management, water pollution prevention and waste management generally. There are, therefore, a number of benefits. More specifically, the nutrients are mineralised allowing improved plant uptake. As the nutrients are more accessible, overall, the slurries produced are more balanced for agricultural application. There are advantages to this process. We have produced a paper as our contribution to the discussion on this issue.

Senator Callanan

The EPA paper deserves discussion.

Chairman

That completes our deliberations on this issue. I thank all the representatives for taking the time to address the committee this morning. This is an ongoing issue to which we will come back at some stage.

The joint committee went into private session at 12.32 p.m. and adjourned at 12.35 p.m. sine die.