Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before we begin, I remind members and witnesses to turn off their mobile phones.

I wish to bring to the witnesses' attention that witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that a witness has a full defence against any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who are to give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to publication by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to the utterances of members participating online in committee meetings from within the parliamentary precincts. Members may not participate online in a public meeting from outside the parliamentary precincts, and any attempt to do so will result in the member having his or her online access removed.

The purpose of today's meeting is a resumed examination of compliance with the nitrates directive and the implications for Ireland. The committee will hear from representatives of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Uisce Éireann, the Local Authority Waters Programme, LAWPRO, and Inland Fisheries Ireland. From the Department, I welcome Mr. Fintan Towey, assistant secretary at the water division, Dr. Colin Byrne, principal adviser on water, and Dr. Marie Archbold, water policy adviser. From Uisce Éireann, I welcome Mr. Niall Horgan, wastewater compliance senior manager, and Ms Lorraine Gaston, asset strategy technical lead. From LAWPRO, I welcome Mr. Anthony Coleman, director of services, Ms Margaret Keegan, regional co-ordinator for the midlands and east, and Ms Ruth Hennessy, catchments manager in the south-east region. From Inland Fisheries Ireland, I welcome Mr. Barry Fox, head of operations, Dr. Fiona Kelly, senior research officer, and Mr. Brian Beckett, director of sustainability and climate action. The witnesses' opening statements have been circulated to members. I will now allow the groups five minutes each to read their statements, starting with the Department, followed by Uisce Éireann, LAWPRO and IFI. We will then proceed to a questions and answers session.

Mr. Fintan Towey:

I thank the committee for inviting the Department to discuss compliance with the nitrates directive. The Department is responsible for the nitrates action programmes, NAPs, and the good agricultural practice, GAP, regulations as well as the national river basin management plan. We work in close collaboration with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, DAFM, in developing these, and DAFM is responsible for authorising and implementing the derogation under the nitrates action programme. Our Department co-chairs the nitrates expert group with DAFM.

Regarding the six questions posed by the committee, our Department is in a position to respond to four of those. Currently, 54% of more than 4,800 water bodies are achieving their environmental objective of at least good status, but 46% are not, according to Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, monitoring. We urgently need to demonstrate improvements in water quality where our water bodies are not achieving at least good status and ensure there is no deterioration in those water bodies that are achieving at least good status.

Agriculture is the most significant pressure on waters, posing a risk to more than 1,000 water bodies. Local authority inspection data from 2022 shows that approximately 30% of farms inspected were non-compliant with the regulations. Therefore, in response to question No. 3 on the possibility of maintaining Ireland’s nitrates derogation at its current level while improving water quality, we feel this is significantly more likely if full compliance with the GAP regulations is achieved. However, we must face the reality that a significant reduction in nitrogen loads being lost to water in the catchments of concern identified by the EPA will be necessary to resolve eutrophication problems in their receiving coastal waters. It is our view that farm advisory services and agri-industry will be essential in supporting farmers to achieve compliance with the regulations. Their advice on reducing nitrogen loads will also be essential.

In response to question No. 4 on whether the nitrates action programme is fit for purpose in protecting Ireland’s water quality, the answer is "Yes". The programme provides a strong common baseline standard of environmental practice across the State. The programme implements and is compliant with the nitrates directive, which is a basic measure under the water framework directive. The purpose of the nitrates action programme and the GAP regulations is to provide a regulatory framework to protect water quality from agricultural impact arising from nitrogen and phosphorus losses to water. Compliance with the regulations is the critical first step in ensuring the protection and improvement of water quality. However, because of the diversity of the Irish landscape, the NAP alone will not deliver all water framework directive objectives where agriculture is a pressure.

While a “common standard of farming environmental practices” will provide a baseline level of protection on all farms in the State, assuming full compliance with the regulations, risk mapping by the EPA has identified risks at farm level that require more spatially targeted protection measures, which go beyond the regulatory standards.

This targeted approach, which is known as the right measure in the right place at the right time, must be supported by supplemental measures.

In response to this challenge, the Department, as part of the second river basin management plan, established LAWPRO, which works in conjunction with the agriculture sustainability and support advisory service, ASSAP, which is co-funded by the Department of agriculture, the dairy industry and my Department. These initiatives will be continued in the third river basin management plan. Following a review of ASSAP, which identified the need to provide agri-environmental advice and financial support for costly supplementary measures, a new farming for water EIP has been established by the Department of agriculture and my Department. With an investment of €60 million, it is the largest EIP ever undertaken in the State. This initiative has broad support across all stakeholders. It is collaborative in nature, is focused on environmental outcomes and provides the opportunity for the farming community to co-lead in improving water quality. My colleagues from LAWPRO will provide further details on the farming for water project.

Question No. 5 asks whether additional supports are required to ensure farmers can be compliant with the nitrates action programme. The interim review of the fifth nitrate action programme has identified that more awareness-raising and knowledge transfer are required. Knowledge transfer from ASSAP, the farming for water EIP, the Waters of Life integrated project and other EIPs are critical to informing the broader advisory services on the key water quality issues on the ground. In addition, the whole agrifood sector has a role to play in supporting farmers.

In response to the final question, additional resources are being provided by the Department to ensure the measures required by the nitrates action programme are adequately enforced. In 2022, the CCMA identified that an additional 57 staff were required to undertake local authority agricultural inspections. In 2023 and 2024, the Department has allocated funding for these 57 agricultural inspectors in addition to the 11 staff already in place. The Department also allocated funding to the EPA for five staff to establish and provide oversight to the local authority national agricultural inspections programme, and four staff in LAWPRO to provide assistance for inspection co-ordination and to support training of staff. In 2024, the local authorities are scheduled to undertake inspections on at least 3,300 farms, increasing to 4,500 farms in 2025.

Mr. Niall Horgan:

I wish the Cathaoirleach and members a good afternoon. We thank them for the invitation to attend this discussion on the nitrates derogation with our colleagues from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, LAWPRO and Inland Fisheries Ireland. Uisce Éireann is Ireland’s national publicly owned water services utility. We are responsible for the delivery of secure, safe and sustainable water services for the people of Ireland. The Water Services Acts 2007-20 set out the arrangements for the delivery and oversight of water and wastewater services by Uisce Éireann. To deliver this, we work closely with our economic regulator, the Commission for Regulation of Utilities; our environmental regulator, the Environmental Protection Agency; as well as with the Department, local authorities and other bodies.

We note the six questions tabled for consideration which focus on implications for the agricultural sector related to the EU nitrates directive, Ireland’s derogation and the nitrates action programme. Uisce Éireann has no specific responsibilities over this area and so we cannot speak at length to the questions the committee has posed. However, Ms Gaston and I are here as the organisation’s subject matter experts closest to this topic and we are happy to provide members with insight from our own work that may be informative for their discussions. The protection of drinking water sources from the risks associated with a range of influences, including nitrates, is a legal requirement under the water framework directive and the new 2023 drinking water regulations which are in the process of being implemented. Treatment processes for nitrate removal are technically complex, highly costly and solutions that are sometimes viable in other countries such as mixing different drinking water sources are often not feasible in Ireland. Protecting and restoring the quality of raw water, which involves multiple stakeholders, is an effective and sustainable means of reducing the cost of water treatment. Experience elsewhere has also found that it can be challenging to reverse rising trends of nitrate concentrations in groundwater and therefore prevention of nitrates entering groundwater in the first instance is key.

Engagement and collaboration can support awareness raising and knowledge sharing. Uisce Éireann advocates for a partnership approach for drinking water source protection between public bodies and other stakeholders, including those in the farming and agricultural sectors. Some examples in this space stem from the second river basin management plan. These include the INTERREG source to tap project, a cross-Border initiative completed in 2022, and a pilot we are currently running called the Erne-Laragh water source protection project. The overall aim of these projects is to provide evidence that managing water catchments is an effective way to protect water sources from pesticides. While not specific to nitrates, both these projects trial catchment-scale interventions to reduce the risk of pollution in water supplies. Such interventions are supplementary to the nitrate action plan and are targeted under the principle of the right measure in the right place at the right time. Examples of interventions include targeting buffer strips in critical areas, fencing of water courses and provision of water troughs and good practice in pesticide use and storage. The projects also aim to broaden the water awareness agenda and to foster active community engagement.

To conclude, we thank the committee for the invitation to meet. This is the first time Ms Gaston and I have addressed the committee and we welcome the opportunity to do so. We will of course take away any wider queries and respond to the committee in follow-up where requested.

Mr. Anthony Coleman:

I thank the Cathaoirleach and the committee for the opportunity to appear to discuss compliance with the nitrates directive and the implications for Ireland. LAWPRO is a national shared service which works on behalf of Ireland’s 31 local authorities to protect and restore good water quality in our rivers, lakes, estuaries, ground, and coastal water. We are funded by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage to provide support in catchment science, to conduct community engagement and to co-ordinate the efforts of local authorities and other public bodies in implementing Ireland’s river basin management plan. While LAWPRO does not have enforcement powers, we collaborate extensively with implementing bodies to ensure effective co-operation in order to produce positive water quality outcomes, both locally and nationally. While local authorities have a regulatory oversight role along with Government Departments and public agencies, responsibility also lies with individuals and the various sectors that require water as a resource, including the agricultural sector.

LAWPRO’s catchment assessment team undertakes scientific local catchment assessments in priority areas for action and provide evidence-based science to better target measures to improve water quality within a catchment. However, we are only a single cog in the wheel that is part of the larger ongoing effort to support farmers to take the necessary action to protect and restore water quality in Ireland. Other key mechanisms are compliance with basic measures and adoption of supplementary measures through voluntary agri-environmental schemes, such as ACRES, Waters of Life and the farming for water EIP.

I will give some examples of LAWPRO’s work to support the agricultural sector. Where agriculture is identified as a significant pressure, LAWPRO’s catchment assessment team directs issues to advisers in the Teagasc- and Dairy Industry Ireland-led agricultural sustainability support and advisory programme. These advisers then work with farmers to improve farm practices and raise awareness of the local water quality issues. To date, up to 8,000 farms have been identified by LAWPRO for targeted advice by ASSAP. In 2022, we collaborated with the EPA and ASSAP to prepare catchment referrals for nitrogen for 1,231 water bodies within and outside the priority areas for action, which the ASSAP dairy co-ops' advisers used to better target farm visits in nitrate risky areas. We support ASSAP in organising farmer events within priority areas for action and contribute vital water quality information to local farmer association meetings. We have presented water quality data at Irish Farmers Journal-hosted events in Cork, Portlaoise and Cavan, and we have supported several co-op farmer sustainability events. LAWPRO delivers catchment science and management training to ASSAP advisers, the Agriculture Consultants Association, ACRES co-operation project leads, local authorities and public agencies. LAWPRO actively participates in numerous expert working groups, such as the Department of agriculture's agriculture and water quality working group.

Farmer engagement with the ASSAP has been successful. However, lack of funding for farmers was identified as a barrier to the implementation of supplementary measures required to protect and restore water quality.

As already outlined by the Department, LAWPRO and its partners, Teagasc and Dairy Industry Ireland, submitted a successful bid for the Farming for Water EIP. This will provide €50 million in funding directly to farmers for the adoption of voluntary measures over and above regulatory compliance to reduce losses of phosphorus, nitrogen, sediment and pesticides in water. The project prioritises areas, which need most attention to protect or restore water quality and will remove the financial barrier that currently prevents some farmers following the recommendations of LAWPRO and ASSAP.

The measures developed for the scheme will contribute to protecting and improving water quality and benefit biodiversity, flood mitigation and support ecosystem climate resilience. These will include spatially targeted actions and improvements in nitrogen use efficiency and nutrient management. The scheme aims to engage up to 15,000 farmers by the end of 2027 and will have at its core the promotion of water stewardship within the agricultural sector. While this targeted scheme will not solve water quality issues in isolation, it will contribute to the multiagency, industry-wide effort required to protect and preserve our water bodies for future generations, while ensuring the sustainability of the agricultural sector.

LAWPRO has provided a separate submission in response to the six questions posed by the committee. I thank committee members for their attention. We welcome any questions they may have.

Mr. Barry Fox:

I thank the Cathaoirleach, Deputies and Senators for inviting us this evening to discuss the nitrates directive and associated matters in a national context. I am accompanied by Dr. Fiona Kelly this evening who is a senior research officer in Inland Fisheries Ireland and Mr. Brian Beckett who is the director of sustainability and climate action in Inland Fisheries Ireland.

Inland Fisheries Ireland is the statutory authority tasked under section 7(1) of the Inland Fisheries Act 2010, with responsibility for the protection, management and conservation of the inland fisheries resource and is one of Ireland’s core environmental agencies. Ireland has approximately 74,000 km of rivers and streams, 12,200 lakes and an extensive coastline of almost 3,200 km, all of which fall under IFI’s jurisdiction. IFI’s role relates to all fish species in fresh water and their habitats, to all aspects of the aquatic environment, such as water quality, biodiversity and hydromorphology and all factors that influence biotic communities within water bodies. The protection and conservation of valuable water resources and protection and enhancement of biological diversity are core components of IFI’s legislative remit. IFI has a long history of assessing the health of rivers, lakes, and transitional waters through the monitoring of fish populations. These national monitoring programmes report on the status of fish populations and inform riverine restoration and protection measures. The fisheries service has worked since the 1950s with all stakeholders including Ireland’s farming communities to safeguard the sustainability of fish populations for the benefit of all.

Healthy freshwater and marine ecosystems are essential for people and nature. Fish populations are a key component of these ecosystems and a primary barometer of environmental health. Freshwater and marine ecosystems and many species are under severe environmental pressure, and some are threatened with extinction due to a combination of factors including water quality decline. Ireland’s particularly vulnerable and threatened fish species include the Atlantic salmon, sea and brown trout, arctic char which is a glacial relict species, pollan, smelt, shad species, sea and river lamprey and the critically endangered European eel, which all rely on clean and abundant water for survival.

Inputs of excessive nutrients - nitrogen and phosphorus - to water bodies lead to an increase in plant and algal growth that degrades water quality. Fish need good quality water and oxygen to survive. An increase in plant growth causes a reduction in dissolved oxygen in the water when the algae die and decompose and can cause fish to die. Eutrophication can also kill off plants which are a food source for many fish species. When algae and plants increase in a water body this can lead to a reduction in water clarity and recreational suitability for stakeholders, such as anglers, and can also reduce the ability of some fish to see prey or predators. Some algal blooms pose an additional threat because they produce toxins, which can be a public health risk and could destroy economically important fisheries.

In a report on fish kill trends in Ireland, which will be published in quarter 2, IFI has identified that agriculture and eutrophication have been the largest contributor to fish kills in Ireland since 1969. The proportion of fish kills attributed to agriculture and eutrophication, was lower in the 2006-2022 period than in the 1969-2006 period.

The EU water framework directive states that all surface waters should reach at least good ecological status by 2027. Good ecological status means a healthy aquatic environment aligning with IFI’s legislative remit to protect and conserve our fish populations. EPA data indicate that in Ireland, 46% of surface waters are in unsatisfactory condition. Of those water bodies considered at risk of not meeting good ecological status, 63% are under pressure from agricultural sources. Elevated nitrogen concentrations are one of the factors that leads to poor water quality outcomes in all waters. The EPA has developed a source load apportionment model which estimates the proportion of the nitrogen inputs to waters in each catchment that comes from each sector. The proportion of the nitrogen coming from agriculture, pasture and arable, is over 90% in the most acutely affected catchments, namely the Barrow, Nore, Suir and Blackwater catchments. IFI is responsible for the national water framework directive fish monitoring programme. Evidence of nutrient enrichment was noted across the Barrow and Nore catchments and other catchments during catchment-wide river surveys carried out by IFI in 2020 and 2021, along with 26 deteriorations in fish ecological status.

The EPA considers that good ecological status under the water framework directive is unlikely to be supported in rivers when nitrate concentrations are higher than 1.8 mg/l as nitrate. An EPA report from 2023 found that in 2022, 44% of Ireland’s rivers had concentrations higher than 8 mg/l of nitrate. It is clear that reductions in nitrogen loads in waters in these catchments are needed to deliver good water quality outcomes and support healthy fish populations and aquatic ecosystems overall.

I have run out of time, but I have answers to four of the questions if the Cathaoirleach would like me to go through them.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, okay.

Mr. Barry Fox:

With respect to the questions posed by the committee, IFI comments are as follows. Questions 1 and 2 are outside of IFI’s area of expertise. Question 3 asked "Is it possible to maintain Ireland’s Nitrates Derogation at its current level, while ensuring that there are improvements to Ireland’s water quality?" Given the issues identified by IFI staff on the ground, this would likely require a significant investment in targeted measures including storage infrastructure and capacity combined with detailed nutrient management planning, which should clearly demonstrate a nutrient balance on lands whether on the farm of origin or the lands where organic fertiliser is to be exported. Increased awareness-raising and advice on water quality as well as increased compliance and enforcement activity would be critical.

Question 4 asked "Is the Nitrates Action Programme fit for purpose in protecting Ireland’s water quality?" The programme is fit for purpose in principle but there are challenges to effective implementation that need to be addressed potentially requiring further investment in infrastructure, awareness, compliance and enforcement.

Question 5 asked "Are there additional supports required to ensure farmers can be compliant with the Nitrates Action Programme?" In IFI’s experience, challenges to compliance most often relate to organic fertiliser management and land-use practice. Additional supports could include: supports for investment in storage infrastructure; increased training supports for farmers, contractors and advisers to increase awareness of the value of good water quality, potential value of slurry and soiled water as a fertiliser and the potential negative impacts on the environment of poor practices; support for detailed nutrient management planning with associated soil sampling so landowners are aware of the nutrient requirements in more detail with the aim of achieving a nutrient balance and sustainable management of nutrient load; supports to restrict cattle access to waters for all landowners, not just derogation farmers, and supports to further protect riparian and in-stream habitats through the creation of buffer zones where multiple co-benefits, including biodiversity, climate, water quality, would accrue; associated supports to install drinkers away from watercourses; supports for clear span farm watercourse crossings protecting water quality; and supports to increase awareness of the potential negative ecological impacts of bankside and in-stream works and best practice if the work is required.

Question 6 asked "Are there additional resources required to ensure the measures required by the Nitrates Action Programme are adequately resourced?" IFI notes and welcomes the relevant resources in respect of supports and enforcement outlined by Mr. Bill Callanan of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine at this committee’s meeting held on 6 March.

IFI is also a member of the Environmental Protection Agency's national agricultural inspection programme working group, which is seeking to harmonise inspections between the Department and the local authorities and move those inspections to a risk-based approach.

IFI and its staff are passionate about the protection and preservation of good water quality. This goal is fully aligned with good and high ecological status under the water framework directive and IFI’s statutory remit to conserve, protect and manage the inland fisheries resource in the most sustainable way possible. IFI works with all relevant authorities and stakeholders to maintain high and good status waters where they exist, and to prevent deterioration of ecological status in all waters. As an organisation we are committed to expanding our resources and efforts to restore and protect our environment and enforce legislation where necessary, particularly where it can support the restoration of water quality and aquatic biodiversity. We are equally committed to continued collaboration and partnership with all stakeholders to safeguard the sustainability of Ireland’s fish populations for the benefit of all into the future.

IFI recommends that funding should be made available to install a network of high-frequency real-time monitoring devices for nitrogen and phosphates in catchments at high risk from excessive nutrient inputs. These sensors should have and Internet of things capability, and the real-time data could be made available to farmers and other stakeholders to inform on farm activities.

The protection of diminishing water resources is becoming more complicated due to climate change. Extra provision must therefore be made in the nitrates action programme to adapt to extreme events such as floods, droughts and heatwaves. IFI has initiated a research programme to bridge a knowledge gap related to the impacts of climate change on Ireland’s fish species and their habitats. The project is measuring long-term changes in water temperature and other environmental variables in Irish rivers, lakes and estuaries through a series of over 300 high-frequency data loggers measuring environmental variables every 15 minutes. Advances in mapping tools are making it possible to identify areas in catchments at risk from climate change and other environmental impacts. IFI would encourage farmers to participate in any proposed mitigation activities once the national risk maps from this project have been published. Additional funding for measures for farmers could be targeted in these high-risk catchments.

Along with our colleagues in University College Dublin, IFI is working with the Waters of Life project to develop a bespoke multidisciplinary monitoring programme to detect change and assess the effectiveness of measures to protect and restore high status objective water bodies. IFI would encourage farmers to participate in the Waters of Life voluntary results-based payment schemes as part of this and other EIPs.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all of the speakers for coming to the committee. There is big attendance this evening. I counted 11 so we can play soccer if we get bored. Hopefully we will not because this is one of the big burning issues for this committee. It is hugely important and it will probably come as no surprise to know that this committee is absolutely wedded to the retention of the organic nitrogen limit with the 220 kg N/ha derogation for Irish farming. It is critical for rural Ireland and it is critical for farm families. The witnesses' submissions are extensive and very insightful and I commend our guests on all of those.

Mr. Towey is coming to us at an opportune time in relation to the Farming for Water EIP scheme. It is significant with €50 million being provided in an effort to tackle 15,000 farms. Purely from a farming point of view, does Mr. Towey believe this is being spread too thinly? If we really look at it there is probably in the order of 2,000 farms affected by the derogation. From another angle one might say they are the offenders in this. Should we not target in a more measured response where we are going with the Farming for Water scheme and go after where the big flashpoints are?

Mr. Fintan Towey:

The Farming for Water EIP is actually the biggest EIP introduced to date. In scale it is a very significant intervention. The Deputy asks if it is spread too thinly. Arguably it would be better if we could spread it more widely but it is a range of supplemental measures over and above the basic regulatory requirements. In driving water quality generally, we need to drive better awareness and knowledge around the existing requirements and better compliance with those. As I said in the opening statement, 30% of the farm inspections that have been undertaken were found not to be in compliance. We are looking to expand the inspection regime. The best tool we can deploy here is not the enforcement; it is the education and awareness. This is the one we need to push hardest on in order to bring about the necessary improvement in water quality. The EIP is a very significant intervention of supplemental measures beyond that.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would probably disagree with the point about education. Farmers know what the issue is and they are trying very hard to address the issue. I appreciate the work that went into getting this EIP and the €50 million. It is the biggest ever but Mr. Towey gave the figures: farming is the most significant pressure on water. It is affecting 1,000 water bodies. We have a €50 million pot. I still cannot see why we are not going after the biggest challenge to water quality coming from agriculture. We all agree it is probably coming directly from dairy farming. It is directly linked to nitrates. Should this €50 million not be focused where the nub of the problem is?

Mr. Fintan Towey:

I will ask my colleague Dr. Byrne to elaborate on that.

Dr. Colin Byrne:

This EIP is a very significant step up from previous EIPs, which were generally for several hundred farms at best. This EIP at 15,000 farms is quite a big undertaking. There is a proof of concept and we have to make sure it works first. On behalf of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, I can say that if we get traction we will be going back looking for more. We really have to get a recruitment aspect into it and get farms involved. It needs collaboration. We have been engaging with the farms. My colleague Mr. Anthony Coleman may speak to this more pointedly. It is an all-of-agricultural sector collaboration. We have been slowly building up to this point. We have the support of the dairy industry, the beef industry and the farming groups. We will rely on those to promote engagement in the project. It is about showing that we can bring real water quality improvements. We have been flatlining for years. In previous engagements, the committee has pointed to the fact that when we take the targeted approach we can actually see an improvement. A key recommendation of the ASSAP review is that a pot of money is needed, which we could dip into for following the evidence and for identifying the risks at farm level in co-operation with the farmer. If there is a cost requirement, there is money available to do that, notwithstanding that it has to be above regulation.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In fairness I agree with everything Dr. Byrne said, and specifically that we need an evidence-based approach, but we have 2,000 farms that are probably the worst affected in viability by the nitrates derogation. On the other side one could say they are probably the offenders in this. While we have a €50 million pot I cannot see why we do not directly aid those farmers to get to where we need to get to and ensure they can keep that 220 kg N/ha derogation. Do the witnesses not see there is some logic in concentrating on that? If we spread this across 15,000 farms it is minuscule whereas if we go after the 2,000 farms most specifically affected by water quality it would have the greatest impact.

Dr. Colin Byrne:

The most widespread issue we have is with phosphorus and sediments and that type of thing. We see the vast bulk of this spend being used to prevent phosphorus and sediment loss into waters. The nitrogen issue is a real problem in free-draining soils. The solution is different and the problem is different. It is about tight control on the nitrogen inputs into those systems. Regulation is a major part of it. There are some things we can do in education and awareness around proper nutrient management. That is a different proposition so to speak. The answer is that the solutions are different.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Byrne. The Farming for Water EIP has been established by two Departments. Will Mr. Towey clarify who owns this? Is it going to be a situation where it falls between two stools? Who is in the driving seat for this EIP?

Mr. Fintan Towey:

It is jointly funded by the Departments of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and Agriculture, Food and the Marine. We are contributing €10 million to the administrative costs and €50 million is provided by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It is, therefore, jointly overseen and administered by the two Departments.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who has overall responsibility for it, however? It would be a concern if something this significant and important for agriculture falls between two Departments. If this committee wants answers, does that mean we have to bring in the Ministers for Housing, Local Government and Heritage and Agriculture, Food and the Marine to find out why the scheme is not working? Who ultimately is responsible for this scheme?

Mr. Fintan Towey:

It is a joint programme so I think that is correct. Ultimately, the two Departments are accountable for the success of it.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is very good. With regard then to staffing, the CCMA identified that 57 additional staff were required for local authority inspections. Funding was provided for these over last year and this year. Are those 57 roles filled now?

Mr. Fintan Towey:

I will ask my colleague, Dr. Archbold, to come in.

Dr. Marie Archbold:

No, those roles are not filled yet. In 2023-----

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How many of those 57 roles are filled?

Dr. Marie Archbold:

In 2023, we allocated funding for 21 roles and at the end of 2023, nine of the 21 were filled. The allocation of funding for the remaining 36 was made. The letters went out to the CCMA in mid-February, which is a month ago now at this stage. They are not filled yet. However, we imagine panels have been developed in terms of the 21 that were sent out and allocated last year. We would hope that would allow quicker allocation and quicker placement of staff in the local authorities. As has been raised previously at this committee, however, it is proving very difficult to get resources into these positions, not alone within this sector but in the broader sector. We are doing everything in our power to support the local authorities in getting those.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can appreciate how difficult it is and everybody will tell us how hard it is to get staff. However, it has to be a worry for us given the step up the number of inspections. I believe we are going to 3,500 this year. Realistically, we are not going to do 3,500 inspections this year if we are at 50% of the staff we plan to recruit. What is a more realistic number of inspections for this year?

Dr. Marie Archbold:

Th Deputy makes a very good point. The ultimate goal is 4,500 farms inspected per annum. That is where we hope to get to in 2025. He is right on that allocation, however. The EPA has oversight of the national agricultural inspection programme. It would have made that calculation of 3,300 farms based on exactly what the Deputy is saying whereby everybody would not be in position. It calculated that based on the recruitment rates we saw in 2023 and then allocated that out accordingly in terms of the 3,300 farms. We still feel that target of 3,300 is realistic given that we could, like the Deputy said, get some of the resources, that is 50% of the resources, in place for 2024.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is very good. Are the five additional staff for the EPA and four for LAWPRO in situ now?

Dr. Marie Archbold:

The five in the EPA are in situ. That programme is fully up and running, which is fantastic. I will hand over to my colleagues in LAWPRO to discuss the four additional staff there.

Ms Margaret Keegan:

With regard to the four staff for LAWPRO, we have panels in place. We have made one offer and we hope to offer the remaining three in the next week or so. We are at the panel-----

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When did LAWPRO start that process of recruitment of four staff?

Ms Margaret Keegan:

We have been in a recruitment process for probably one year now.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is worse than the HSE.

Ms Margaret Keegan:

We have been filling posts. We thankfully received additional resources in 2023 and we have most of those completed. We are also have resources for 2024. It is a challenging prospect.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate it is challenging. Equally, however, it is very challenging for the farming community. If we were to take at face value what we are saying in terms of the staffing, this EIP farming for water initiative is not going to work because we are not going to have the bodies there to implement it, go out and assess farms and then police the process.

Mr. Anthony Coleman:

I will come in to clarify a few points if I may. The Deputy raised the question of targeting the farming for water EIP. We are targeting the areas at risk. There is already a backlog of 8,000 farms that have been referred through the ASSAP. That is the first cohort of farmers. We need a catchment-based approach. It is not just the derogation farmers who need to improve compliance; every farmer and every activity within that catchment needs to be addressed. That is what will help to protect the derogation. As representatives from the Department said, if we can reach the targets there, I am sure they will not be found wanting for additional resources. That is our focus. We have nearly half of our team in the farming for water EIP in place. We have started the pilots. We have work done on the ground with Teagasc and our partners in the dairy industry. We are ambitious to achieve those targets, but it will require the efforts of all the partners, the industry and the farm organisations to back it, come behind it and encourage farmers to take up this funding that is there. That is just-----

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the catchment referral approach. If we go back to 2022, LAWPRO prepared those catchment referrals in conjunction with the EPA and ASSAP. I believe that was for just over north of 700,000 ha. What has happened those specifically since? Mr. Coleman might elaborate on that.

Mr. Anthony Coleman:

I might pass over to my colleague on the catchment side.

Ms Ruth Hennessy:

That was an initiative in response to the catchments of concern report the EPA produced, which identified those catchments where we are seeing that significant nitrogen reductions are required. Using that and other information available, we were able to identify the areas within those catchments that were most at risk for nitrogen losses or freely draining soils and the farming practices on those. Therefore, by identifying those areas and providing risk criteria or prioritisation criteria the co-operatives could use, we could see the areas within those that were losing the most nitrogen and then allow the co-operatives to work with farmers in those areas. That is what co-operative advisers have been doing. This was specifically an action that co-operative advisers were able to use. They were able to use that information to engage farmers to look at the nitrogen use within their farms and within their farming systems. We know that nitrogen use efficiency across farms is generally quite low. It is in the order of 20%. The ambition is to get it to the order of 35%, so-----

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry, I am just conscious of my time. We did that in 2022 and LAWPRO is obviously tracking that. Have we seen progress over that 700,000 ha?

Ms Ruth Hennessy:

It is a voluntary initiative with the co-operatives and it is a confidential one as well. Therefore, we do not actually get to see the farms with which they have engaged. What we can see is the engagement they have and the advice they are issuing to those farms. The ambition is to reduce the total nitrogen surplus that is building up and, therefore, reduce the risk of losses.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The witnesses are not to take this as personal criticism, but I worry that we would go to the effort of doing the research to identify 700,000 ha and then hand over the ownership and not do anything with it other than give it to the co-operatives and expect that something is going to happen. It is alarming for that body of work, which was obviously a significant expense. As a Government, we have to say that we have to drive this. That is why I have a concern that this is across two Departments. Effectively, we do not know who owns this initiative to improve water quality. Significant, and I am sure exemplary, work was done. We have basically handed it over and we are not taking ownership. We are not tracking. Can we see whether there has been any progress?

Mr. Anthony Coleman:

To address that again, with regard to the ownership of it, an oversight committee has been established specifically for the farming for water EIP, which is jointly chaired by both Departments and involves LAWPRO, Dairy Industry Ireland, Teagasc and Bord Bia. New structures are, therefore, being put in place. We recognise the weaknesses to date in reporting. New systems have been put in place. Teagasc has a new IT system now. It is updating the backlog of referrals and the information that is coming back from farmers. We know there needs to be more of a focus on that and it needs to translate into applications true to the EIP.

We will have more visibility then of the measures being put on the ground as those systems are put in place. On regular reporting, we are now meeting every month to address those issues.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Returning to the catchment referral from 2022, is there not an onus on us to follow up on that? It is a significant body of work. It is out there in the abyss. Surely we should have been tracking that and know the progress on that.

Mr. Anthony Coleman:

We will go back to Teagasc and ask for clarification on that. I will be happy to come back to the committee on it.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Lovely. I thank Mr. Coleman.

Dr. Marie Archbold:

I will take those on behalf of the Department. I might flip the question on lag times. In 2018 there was the drought. The advice at the time was to put out chemical fertiliser to try to get growth and that is what the farmers did. Then, by the end of 2018, coming into autumn, we stated to see a huge spike in nitrogen in water quality. As the big flush came on, that continued. We had a wet winter which went into the wet spring of 2019. We saw the N concentrations go up dramatically. That is just to show that when something goes wrong, there is very little lag in the system. Therefore our system is very responsive to what happens.

Dr. Marie Archbold:

I am just pointing that out to show the quick response. On improvements, obviously there are lags across policy into implementation. Once there is implementation to measure on the ground, then it depends on the soil thickness. In Curtins Farm, in Cork, which is on karst, for example, you would see a very quick response to measures because there is a very quick pathway down to the water bodies, whereas on thicker soil, which was still free-draining, it could be anything between, say, five to ten years. The response can take from probably a few months up to years. It goes back to our mantra that it is all about location and targeting the right measure in the right place at the right time. Things like the EIP and all the other life projects are all responding to this.

The Senator asked whether enough time was given to the midterm review. The Commission has always told us that we have to demonstrate an improvement in water quality where we are not achieving our environmental objective and show we are maintaining stability where we are achieving our environmental objective. We did not show that in the midterm review.

Dr. Marie Archbold:

Yes, but stability is a different thing and we did not even demonstrate stability in all those areas either. A large part of the country would see very quick recovery following implementation but we just did not see that.

On the Barrow, Nore and Suir, the Senator is correct in saying there is a higher level of tillage in those catchments, particularly the Slaney and the Barrow, but going through the EPA catchments of concern document, significant reductions are required in areas that do not have a high amount of tillage. The report considers the Boyne, Liffey, Slaney, Barrow, obviously, Nore, Suir, Blackwater, Lee, Bandon, Deel and Maigue. Across those, even a river like the Blackwater needs a 17% reduction in nitrogen. A large proportion of that would be pasture. It is across the board in those 12 catchments of concern which that EPA document looks at.

Mr. Niall Horgan:

I will defer to my colleague, Ms Gaston.

Ms Lorraine Gaston:

To add to what our colleagues in the Department have said, we see elevated nitrates in some of our groundwater and drinking water supplies. The lag time for trying to reverse trends in groundwater can be quite long. In other countries, it can be five to ten years and we would expect that kind of time for groundwater specifically. We cannot comment on whether enough time has been given for the midterm review as we were not involved in developing that report.

Mr. Anthony Coleman:

I will ask my colleague Ms Hennessy to address the lag issue. On additional catchments, we are working with a number of co-ops, including the Kerry Group in the Castleisland area and in the Maine and Fahaduff catchments. Obviously, that is primarily a dairy area. We have a tillage pilot in the Ballon area in Carlow and looking at areas in Athy. Those are just the start. There will be a number of other areas we will focus on with the co-ops and with Teagasc.

Ms Ruth Hennessy:

On lag time, when we look at phosphorus, the lag time is generally much quicker. If that is what is causing the problem in the river, you will see the river respond and water quality improve relatively quickly. It can happen in a single growing season, so over a year, you would expect to see improvements in water quality once the sources of phosphorus are removed and the ecology will recover. For nitrogen, it will depend on the catchment and the time it takes that surplus nitrogen that is in the soil and is being leached how long it takes to work through the system. Generally, we see much of that surplus nitrogen come through within a single year and we see it come through the subsequent wet period the following winter when it will often spike.

We would expect to see the effect of it within that time. An issue in the context of lag time, particularly for nitrogen, is that we need to see improvements in a wide area across the catchment. That requires the participation of a large number of farmers across different sectors including pasture and tillage. That can cause, if one wants to call it such, a lag time in behavioural change, perhaps, or people may be slower to get on board or see their role. Widespread uptake of some of those basic measures and basic compliance and the supplementary, additional measures that can be implemented through the likes of the Farming for Water EIP and other schemes is required to see the level of water quality improve in the catchments about which the Senator spoke, such the Nore, the Suir, the Barrow and the Slaney, and elsewhere.

Mr. Niall Horgan:

I defer to Dr. Kelly to answer Senator Daly's query.

Dr. Fiona Kelly:

I cannot comment specifically on lag times. We have not done any studies on it. We are not studying NMP. We are looking at it from the biological side and the biological recovery of fish and how they recover as indicators of water quality. That takes a number of cycles. It will take at least three years for some populations of fish to recover. It will also depend, as colleagues said, on soil type, seasonal fluctuations in weather and all of those things. Mr. Beckett may wish to comment.

Mr. Brian Beckett:

I do not have much to add. Fish populations, as Mr. Fox said, mirror water quality. When we get that response when the improved water quality comes, nature is very resilient and it bounces back relatively quickly. There are cycles on which the fish population rely naturally to recover. It is at least a three-year cycle for fish.

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair and our guests. The witnesses spoke a great deal about farmers and the situation they had to cope with recently in light of the reduction from 250 kg N/ha to 220 kg N/ha. I know there were quite a lot of visits to farms in Timoleague and that whole area in west Cork where water quality was found to be as good as you could probably get but it still made no difference to them. They are still in the same tunnel, on the same bus with the reduction from 250 kg N/Ha to 220 kg as if they were serial offenders. I have to ask a number of questions. No matter how well some farmers are making improvements, will it make any difference? Will they still be in the same situation that they will be dropped to 170 kg N/ha perhaps in the next couple of years because the political will is not strong enough in Europe to fight for the farmer?

I have to be honest and not wishing to be offensive to any individual here, are some of the organisations the right bodies to be looking over all of this? There is a situation in which I do not know how many towns and villages have raw sewage going into the tide in their local communities and no one is worried about that, looking into that or improving that. Surely that adds to the crisis the farmers are facing at present. The environmental watchdog said recently that 10,000 tonnes of raw sewage are pumped out into Irish waters every minute. That is coming from towns and villages; it has nothing to do with farmers as such.

I attended a meeting not so long ago in Shannonvale in Clonakilty where the issue has been reported on numerous occasions to Uisce Éireann that the stinking substance leeches into the Ardgroom River up to the intake pipe for the Clonakilty drinking water supply scheme. This has been going on for 26 years. That is an astonishing amount of time. I know of a man who built some houses down there. He is willing to sit down with Uisce Éireann and put this right; he is willing to invest in it. I have been trying for six months to get somebody in Uisce Éireann to put up their hand and say they will talk - it might not happen overnight but they will talk to him. If Uisce Éireann continues to step back and allow this to go on in a community in Clonakilty - Shannonvale is a huge area - without speaking to anybody, how can it be the body overlooking issues that farmers might be doing on a far smaller scale? I genuinely would like someone to be accountable in Uisce Éireann, put up their hand and say they can be contacted and we can try to put this problem right. It is only one of many in west Cork. I could name the other towns and villages - they are dotted around the country, so I will not name them individually - but they have raw sewage going into the water. Is Uisce Éireann the body to oversee farmers putting things right when its own house is in a shocking condition?

Mr. Fintan Towey:

I will respond initially and colleagues may then come in. On the derogation, I do not think there is any issue around the will to seek to retain it. We operate within the legal bounds of the water framework directive, which sets out the criteria that need to be met in order to sustain an exception to the general rules that apply across all of Europe. We have that exception in place. It is based on objective criteria relating to Ireland. It is conditional on us demonstrating that we do not have a degradation in water quality, are improving water bodies in substandard condition and that water bodies in good condition are not deteriorating. That is where the focus has to be - on demonstrating that we are achieving the necessary improvements to water quality. That is the basis on which we will seek to argue for the retention of the derogation. Clearly, we have to improve our performance in order to come with a compelling argument.

The issue the Deputy highlighted regarding raw sewage is of enormous concern. It has been clearly highlighted in monitoring by the Environmental Protection Agency in relation to wastewater discharges. The EPA identified the instances where that still occurs. There is a programme of actions under way led by Uisce Éireann. I will ask Uisce Éireann to expand on it in a moment. Uisce Éireann, as the Deputy knows, is predominantly funded by the Exchequer. About 20% of its expenditure is funded through charges to non-domestic users. About 80% is provided by the Exchequer. Within the funding provided, it is important that non-compliance instances are prioritised for remediation. There is a plan in place. I do not have the specifics in front of me but I think that by 2026, the instances of discharge of raw sewage will come to an end. To bring that about, there will be a series of upgrades of wastewater treatment plants. The process of upgrading those plants is not a simple business. It is a significant project and a large investment and requires various consents. It will be a multiyear process. That is why it will be another couple of years before those issues are resolved. Perhaps Uisce Éireann would like to expand on that.

Mr. Niall Horgan:

The Deputy mentioned regulatory oversight of farmers. Uisce Éireann does not have regulatory oversight of farmers. We, in turn, are regulated by the EPA. In the EPA's most recent report on urban wastewater, the progress in eliminating raw sewage discharges around the country was highlighted. Of the 50 raw sewage discharges found under Uisce Éireann's remit from 2014, 31 have been addressed. Of the 19 remaining, three have ceased since earlier this year, five are under construction and all the rest are going through planning and design.

We have invested more than €700 million in eliminating raw sewage and have plans in place to eliminate the rest over the next investment period.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thirty-five towns have storm water and sewage in mixed sewers, and none of those towns has the treatment plant capacity it needs. Are there plans to address those 35 fairly large towns?

Mr. Niall Horgan:

In Ireland and many other countries, combined sewers are a common part of managing and collecting wastewater. They are provided for under the urban wastewater treatment directive and are regulated under our wastewater discharge licences. I believe the 35 towns in question are the ones associated with significant pressures. We have plans in place to address them. For example, there have been recent significant drainage plans for Roscommon, Enniscorthy, Fermoy and Mallow and a main drainage scheme is under way in Athlone. We are happy to revert to the Cathaoirleach on the specifics of the 35 towns and update him on those. In general, we are progressing with addressing the known issues there.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When the town I know best gets heavy rain, the solution is to open the sluice gates and let the sewage go. My town has been flooded five times in the past six years, involving isolated incidents of heavy downpours in summer and autumn. Sewage comes up onto the streets. It disappears within ten minutes because a council worker gets to the treatment plant and the sewage is let go straight into the River Suir. This happens regularly. Our town’s capacity is inadequate. I know three or four of the 35 towns well, and they face the same problem.

I support Deputy Collins’s point. Farmers are the only ones who have been penalised over water quality. I accept that nitrates and phosphorous are different pollution sources, but water quality will not improve while we have that level of raw sewage going into our streams and rivers.

Mr. Niall Horgan:

We acknowledge that we have work to do on delivering water quality improvements. Following the recent assessments and as part of the third cycle of river basin management planning, we have come fourth in terms of being a significant pressure impacting on 4% of the water bodies nationally. Many of those bodies will be addressed during the current and future investment cycles. We have plans to start addressing them and expect to move from being the fourth significant pressure down to the sixth or seventh by the end of the next investment period.

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I could refer to other towns and areas, but I will zone in on Shannonvale specifically. It has been waiting 26 years for improvements, but there have been none. What is happening is destructive. Raw sewage is entering people’s drinking water pipelines. We cannot get an opportunity to sit down with Uisce Éireann. It blames the council and the council blames it. It is like a football game and the people are caught in the middle of it. Surely be to God there should be a facility open to public representatives when we have someone who is willing to invest and work with Uisce Éireann. What is happening is not fair.

Mr. Niall Horgan:

Absolutely. I am more than happy to take the Deputy’s points about the specific issues at Shannonvale away with me and revert to him afterwards.

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would appreciate that, but how will I communicate with Uisce Éireann?

Mr. Niall Horgan:

After this meeting, we will follow up with the Deputy directly.

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Horgan. This is a serious issue. There are other areas in west Cork where raw sewage is entering the pipeline, yet there is so much finger-pointing at farmers that it is almost as if the farmer is guilty of all the wrongs that exist when that is not the case. We have to put this situation right in our towns and villages. In my village of Goleen in west Cork, we spent a great deal of money – Uisce Éireann was not up and running at the time – bringing people from all over the world to try to put it right for various properties and their surrounds. As a community council, we did everything at our own cost to try to sort it out. We are 22 years later. This is scandalous. Small villages and towns are dying a death. Development is not happening because we do not have proper infrastructure, including sewerage and water schemes. Most of the schemes and tanks are faulty and pouring raw sewage into our water.

I would appreciate it if Uisce Éireann communicated with me. I want to work towards a solution, not just moan and groan without doing anything else. There is a solution, and I would appreciate it if we all worked together on it.

Mr. Niall Horgan:

We will.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone for attending. I will shoot a few quickfire questions at a few of the witnesses, starting with LAWPRO. How many towns and villages have no sewerage?

Mr. Anthony Coleman:

Responsibility for sewerage rests with Uisce Éireann. It is not-----

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. These are areas where there is no Uisce Éireann infrastructure. How many of the towns local authorities are in control of have no sewerage?

Mr. Anthony Coleman:

I do not have that information to hand, but I can revert to the Deputy with it.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The number around the country is in the hundreds. Sewage is going into streams.

Turning to Uisce Éireann, how many towns under its programme need upgrades and new systems?

Mr. Niall Horgan:

I do not have that information to hand, but I can revert to the Deputy with the detail of the overall number that need investment.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the two organisations do not know the number, how can they know if they need to fix a problem? The dogs on the street know that sewage is going into rivers. The reports talk about phosphorous and a model is used. As a result of Uisce Éireann and the local authorities not knowing, the farmer has a red mark over him or her. A farmer in Leitrim was in derogation but is out of it now. That was in the west of Ireland, where you would never see a dairy cow in certain areas. How much of a contribution did the witnesses’ organisations make to that? Neither body knows.

Am I correct in saying that Uisce Éireann is scaling back because funding has tightened? I have heard this from the people looking after water and sewerage around the country.

Mr. Niall Horgan:

Regarding the Deputy’s question on impacts, we know from the third cycle of river basin management planning where the greatest impacts associated with wastewater are. That is very much to the forefront of our investment planning process. The locations where there are networks or wastewater treatment plants that are identified as significant pressures are feeding into the investment process we are completing right now-----

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay, but-----

Mr. Niall Horgan:

-----and into the next one as well.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will that investment process and all of this work be done by 2025?

Mr. Niall Horgan:

We work within a regulatory-----

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I am asking a straightforward question. Will it be done by 2025? The farmers of Ireland on the derogation are up to date on all the results of water quality as they relate to the derogation going forward. Is it fair to say that the answer to whether the work will be done is “No”?

Mr. Niall Horgan:

Where Uisce Éireann is identified as impacting on 4% of water bodies, we will be progressing work in those areas. I cannot answer the Deputy about whether all of that work will be completed-----

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sure, I could start the job tomorrow and not have it done by 2025. Anyone who knows anything about this work knows that.

Mr. Niall Horgan:

I can revert to the Deputy with a response to that query, but-----

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please do.

My next question is for the Department. I am not a scientist, but am I right in saying that four criteria are used when assessing water quality?

Dr. Marie Archbold:

The Deputy is referring to what was required under the derogation decision. Four criteria were used for that.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who came up with those?

Dr. Marie Archbold:

The Commission. They are separate to what the EPA would normally report on. Those four criteria were developed specifically for the derogation decision. We are not tied to them in the annual reporting to Europe on the derogation. We are not tied to them going forward either. It is up to-----

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for my ignorance, but I just want to know about it.

There are four criteria used and if farmers go down in one of the criteria, they are gone. Is that correct?

Dr. Marie Archbold:

In terms of the derogation-----

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At one time, when doing the leaving certificate examinations if students got three questions right and one wrong, they passed. They would get a B grade, or whatever. In this situation, by contrast, if farmers go down in one of the criteria, they are gone.

Dr. Marie Archbold:

In terms of the derogation decision, that is the case.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why is that the case if Dr. Archbold says there is a different reporting mechanism yearly? The witnesses have considerable experience in respect of what the Commission has laid down. Is it a matter of trying to win a 100 m race when you would not run 5 yd.? Is what the Commission has laid down unachievable? That is what I am trying to get to grips with. Dr. Archbold said that a different system applies to yearly reporting.

Dr. Marie Archbold:

Criteria were set out for the derogation decision. That was the first time Ireland, as a State, has been asked-----

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it a very high threshold?

Dr. Marie Archbold:

If we were allowed to set out the criteria, we would not have taken the same kind of evidence-based approach. It would be seen as a precautionary approach as opposed to a scientific and risk-based approach.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are scientific people in Europe telling us what they want to get over the line? If the Department were setting it out, in fairness to it, some of those things would not be included. Would that be fair to say? Europe is trying to move the Department to a particular standard.

Dr. Marie Archbold:

A report was submitted by the Department to the Commission in June. The EPA, in doing the report, included the red map to answer the four criteria for which the Commission asked. On page 21 of the report, there was a targeted measures map that the EPA put forward. That was a risk-based and evidence-based approach. Going forward, if the Commission is willing to listen and negotiate, those would be the criteria put forward.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry for interrupting. Dr. Archbold said, "if the Commission is willing to listen". What is the hope of that? I do not want to be codding farmers. That is it. The guillotine may be coming today or tomorrow. Someone in the Commission is setting out criteria to the Department, which is getting a raft of criteria from Europe, and is telling the Department that the Commission can give it something if it is able to achieve something else. I am trying to establish what the Commission is trying to achieve, especially with soil type, as Dr. Archbold said earlier, and the permeability of rock or heavy, free-draining soil. Are we on a hiding to nothing with what the Commission has laid out and what we are trying to achieve in the timeframe? That is what I am trying to establish. We are going around in circles at the moment. These criteria have been laid down by Brussels. Who laid down the criteria in respect of phosphates for all of the country? Who laid down the model and the criteria?

Dr. Marie Archbold:

I will start by replying to the Deputy's question as to whether the Commission will listen. Commissioner Sinkeviius came to visit and Commission officials came to visit thereafter. The criteria shifted. They made it clear that the criteria for getting a derogation going forward under the sixth nutrients action programme, NAP, would include that Ireland would have to demonstrate there is no deterioration in the water bodies that are achieving their environmental objective at the moment, which means a status that is at least "good". For water bodies that are not achieving at least a "good" status, an improvement must be demonstrated. There has been a movement away from the four criteria the Deputy is talking about in the language coming from the Commission. It is stating that we need to demonstrate those two criteria.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When will decisions be made as to what the criteria will be for the next review?

Dr. Marie Archbold:

The Department will start leading out on the negotiation at the end of this year. That negotiation period will extend to the end of 2025. It will become clear throughout that period.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am trying to understand. Nitrates affect one part of the country and the rest of it is affected by phosphorous. Who set up the model? Modelling has been done. When I sample the water and then ring the Department, I am asked how many cows and cattle and other things are in the area. I will be asked about Irish Water in the area. A model is being used. Who did up that model and how accurate is it? This is not Irish Water's fault because it is not something that was done down the years and it has not been on the go for long. There was a lack of funding to councils through the years and the infrastructure was not put in place for sewers. It is as simple as that. I know several towns in which the sewage is going. It is the farmers here who have the red map over them. It is not the towns but the farmers and the enterprise in which they are involved that has the red map over them. Who is designing these models? Everything is based on a model nowadays. We calculate how many cattle and people are in an area, and consider the situation with respect to Irish Water, and this great yoke will tell us what the problem is and who is responsible. I do not think it works that way, to be frank, if raw sewage is going into a place. The most pristine river in Ireland, Island River, is near where I and Councillor Declan Geraghty live. I know it is the most pristine in Ireland but it has a red mark around it now because of the nitrates. There is something wrong. The river is coming for miles. Why is that?

Dr. Marie Archbold:

I will start by answering the Deputy's question about the model, and "model" is a loose term that is used when it is more of a process. Under the river basin management plan, there is a process called a characterisation risk assessment. The EPA undertakes that assessment. It involves using more than 140 datasets from all the people in the different organisations represented at this meeting and 30 or 40 other organisations that are involved in water management.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask Dr. Archbold to correct me if I am wrong in my understanding. The committee has heard from representatives of the EPA. Some 286 are tested regularly. Off the top of my head, and I am open to correction on this point, I believe 1,680 are tested once a year. The rest are tested every few years. Is that correct? The Cathaoirleach, Senators Lombard and Paul Daly and I were in Brussels talking to the Commissioner. The fear I have is that these guys do not want to listen. They told us that other countries might go against us. In fairness, the Department said something a bit different. In some cases, a river is tested once a year. The results could be bad or good the next year. In other cases, such as in some places in Cork, things are being tested every 15 minutes. What criteria are used? Is it hard luck if the results are bad on the day and good luck if they are good? What sort of a system have we?

Dr. Marie Archbold:

There are different frequencies for monitoring nationally. Some of the monitoring points are monitored every month. Some are monitored once every three months. Ecological monitoring takes place around the country once every three years.

If there is a problem, it comes down to the characterisation risk assessment approach involving all the monitoring data and information. That is all pulled together and the EPA then assesses where water bodies are at risk of impact from agriculture. That is put into maps and LAWPRO is tasked with going out in those priority areas for action, getting boots on the ground and seeing what exactly is the problem in the river. That involves more monitoring. If there is a problem, a referral goes out to ASSAP.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there agreement from the Department and all parties? I have a last question for Inland Fisheries. There could be a farmer in derogation, or a swathe of farmers, who are doing everything right and to the best of their abilities and have enough storage. I agree that storage is awfully important. There could be a person two miles down the road from those farmers who is not in derogation. If that person does not know how to spread slurry correctly, that could harm the area. Is that fair to say? In such a scenario, it is the derogation farmer who would pay the price.

Dr. Marie Archbold:

Is that question for Inland Fisheries?

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That question is for the Department and then I will have a last question for Inland Fisheries.

Dr. Marie Archbold:

In such cases, that is where LAWPRO and ASSAP come in. Obviously, there would be an inspection. If there is some non-compliance, the inspection programme would come in and catch that. If there is no non-compliance or enforcement issue, LAWPRO, ASSAP and now the farming for water EIP would come in on the advisory side to help address issues there. We would come at it both ways, depending on the issue and what was causing it.

The Deputy referred to spreading slurry outside the closed period. Obviously, that is a compliance issue.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not even talking about the closed period. I am talking about circumstances where a farmer do not do something by the letter. Contractors have to keep their distance from streams and do everything right. There could be a host of farmers up the way who are on derogations and doing everything 100% right. Derogation is the game in town at the moment but if someone who is not on derogation does something stupid, that could affect the whole catchment area. Would that be fair to say?

Dr. Marie Archbold:

Absolutely. It goes back to the point made in our opening statement. The Deputy referred to one person doing something stupid or non-compliant. It is not just on derogation farmers; it is about the sector taking ownership of this holistically and working together to achieve the outcomes. The reality is that we need significant nitrogen load reductions in some of our catchments. In some catchment areas, everybody might be fully compliant and doing everything right. In such cases, it is about getting the advisory services and the likes of the farming for water EIP into those areas to offer support in order to target and reduce nitrogen surpluses, improve nitrogen use efficiencies on those farms and reduce nitrogen losses into the estuarine environment. Working together across the whole sector is key.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My last question is for Inland Fisheries. I saw fish kills in County Clare. Are fish kills throughout the country being monitored? Is it fair to say the biggest fish kills have not been at the hand of farmers? That is how it seems from the monitoring I have done of various fish kills throughout the country. Who ended up paying the price at the end of it? Who is Inland Fisheries bringing to court in the context of the numbers in the past year?

Mr. Barry Fox:

We can provide the Deputy with the statistics.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Fox have them here?

Mr. Barry Fox:

We have the statistics for the last number of years here. From 2019 to 2023 there were 118 reported fish kills in total. In that five-year period, 21 were caused by agricultural practices, 12 were caused by industrial operations, 15 were caused by municipal works and 62 were due to other causes, such as disease, natural causes, climate change issues and low water conditions.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask Mr. Fox to explain the final figure he provided, of 62 fish kills.

Mr. Barry Fox:

I will let Mr. Beckett, who is our biodiversity and climate action director, speak to it. He is probably more eloquent than I am.

Mr. Brian Beckett:

I thank the Deputy. As time goes on we are seeing a new layer on top of the standard fish kill scenarios. If there is deteriorated water quality and, on top of that, very high temperatures or sustained low flows in rivers, there are more fish kills. In recent years we have had to put large numbers of fish kills down to this cause, which is a catch all. It relates to poorer conditions within rivers in general, with climate in combination with other factors. It is as though there is a tipping point. We are now closer to that tipping point on the basis of several factors, including water quality in some areas and things such as disease, which can happen as a result of warmer temperatures.

Mr. Anthony Coleman:

May we respond on some of the Deputy's questions? Ms Hennessy will expand on our catchments programme if time permits.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Ms Ruth Hennessy:

I will answer some of the Deputy's questions about building on the information we have from the likes of the EPA models and the data that is there. LAWPRO was established specifically to answer the questions he is asking about trying to understand what is causing those water quality declines in particular catchments, whether it is agriculture or wastewater treatment, and trying to disentangle from the multitude of different things we see.

Our starting point in the catchment is always the water quality data that is available from the EPA monitoring programme and the models that are there. We take that information and build on it. We go out and do our own assessments. We have a team of catchment scientists and are working in 190 areas that have been established throughout the country. We go out into those catchments and do our own investigations and ecological assessments and look at the biology. We also take nutrient levels, look at nutrient flow conditions as well as oxygen and walk the different sections of the river.

We start from the monitoring points where we have information and look upstream at all the tributaries that are discharging into the main channel. We look above and below the likes of the town's wastewater treatment plants, collection systems and industry. In smaller rivers we look at the likes of septic tanks and things like that. That allows us to pinpoint with a greater level of confidence what the source of those problems might be, whether it is phosphorous, nitrogen, ammonia, sediment or anything else. We use a range of techniques to do that. As was stated, it is primarily boots on the ground, a presence in the catchment and revisiting the catchment over different conditions and seasons to build a clearer picture.

Once we identify the issue causing the water quality declines and the activities that are related to it, we refer that to the various Government agencies responsible for regulation. If it is a wastewater treatment plant or an industry, it would be the likes of the Environmental Protection Agency or a local authority. Where there are agricultural issues, we work with the agricultural sustainability support and advice programme. It will work farmers in those catchments to address the issues, such as phosporous losses or nitrates, that are causing the problems. We are specifically there to answer some of those questions.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming in. There was an awful lot in their detailed opening statements, which are much appreciated. I will make one point and then ask a question of the witnesses. It is important to make the point that this is the committee on agriculture and that is very much the lens through which we are looking at this issue. While lots of different people and sectors cause issues when it comes to water quality, farmers, particularly those in derogation, are the ones who are hit financially. It is their livelihoods that are at stake.

A lot of them are under pressure, facing an uncertain future and they wonder if their children will have a future in agriculture. For those people this is an issue of huge concern. While nobody here is under the Department of agriculture, that is the focus from which we look at this. It is important to set that out.

A lot has been said, but my question relates to the water framework directive. There has been uncertainty. When the Commissioner came to Ireland, he spoke about stable water quality for the next look at the derogation. However, it then became about how we need to be meeting what is laid out under the directive. We know that has to be achieved between now and 2027. Leaving the farmers to one side, my question is to Uisce Éireann in particular. What are its responsibilities? What does it need to achieve under the directive to get us there? As I have said, leaving farmers to one side, there is a role for everyone in this room. If farmers did everything asked of them, in particular those in the derogation, it would not be enough to achieve what is under the water framework directive. If Uisce Éireann has three, four, five or ten measures to achieve under that, will it achieve them by 2027? What work is it doing in areas outside agriculture to reach the recommendations laid out in the directive that we are expected to, and should meet, by 2027?

Dr. Colin Byrne:

We are hoping to publish the river basin plan soon. We take a holistic approach, so we look at catchments in their totality and what the significant pressures are. Ms Hennessy spoke to that point earlier. If agriculture and urban wastewater are a problem in a particular catchment, plans will be put in place to address all of those measures. There are sectoral plans that Uisce Éireann will prepare. That will start over the coming months. On the inspection side under nitrates, there will be a number of inspections planned for a particular catchment. There will be a number of farms targeted through the farming for water project, and depending on what is happening in a catchment, a plan of action will be put together with the intention of bringing us close to full achievement by 2027, which is clearly challenging. Some 46% of water bodies are not achieving their objectives, so we have to plan beyond that. However, we will look to get as close to 100% as possible. We have a mid-term review planned for next year where, depending on how progress is going with the farming for water project for instance and the number of farmer recruitments, we will look at whether we are on target and if we can increase our ambition. We will aim as high as we can. However, at this point it is inevitable that we will have to extend beyond 2027. There are grounds for exemptions and to extend deadlines based on robust and stringent criteria. A piece of work we need to do over the coming 12 to 24 months is setting that out. We will aim as high as we can. We will take an estimate as to how far we will get, what the gap will be, and look at the grounds for extended deadlines beyond that. That gives the general context. Mr. Horgan will speak for Uisce Éireann.

Mr. Niall Horgan:

Between the second and third cycle of river basin management planning, there was a significant decrease in terms of the number of pressures associated with urban wastewater. Last year that decreased further, and is reflective of the upgrading and investment in urban wastewater infrastructure. Last year we invested more than €400 million in urban wastewater and continue to see the significant pressure sites as a priority for investment going forward. We are committed to having assessments done in the next investment period to identify exactly what upgrades are needed to address those significant pressures.

Mr. Anthony Coleman:

I turn to the issue in the farming community. We recognise the pressures, but we also know that the agricultural sector is the largest pressure on water quality, and the largest burden falls there. While Uisce Éireann and other sectors such as forestry, septic tanks and urban wastewater all need to be addressed, the greatest challenge is in agriculture. It is important the message goes out that we need the farming community to come on board with this. If it believes the derogation is going to be lost and cannot be saved then that will be a self-fulfilling prophecy, and we do not want that to happen. We need to get behind all of the initiatives there and encourage the sector to take a whole sector approach to dealing with it.

Mr. Barry Fox:

IFI's only responsibility with regard to the water framework directive is the monitoring of fish populations. We report that into the EPA. I add that it is not all bad news with the farming community. IFI worked closely with LAWPRO and the farming community all over the country to put in different development projects and interventions along the riparian corridor and improving the habitats and diversity in those catchments. There is a lot of good news with regard to the working relationships between our organisations and the farming community, and it is improving year on year.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the committee I thank the organisations for their comprehensive presentations. This is one in a series of meetings we are having on nitrates. The committee's objective is to produce a report that we can take to Brussels. I apologise; does Senator Boyhan wish to make a contribution?

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for delaying proceedings, but people sped up. I indicated earlier. It has been a long day for the Cathaoirleach and it has certainly been a long day for us in Leinster House. I have two or three questions. The first is to Mr. Towey from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. In his submission paper, he stated the Department allocated funding for five EPA staff. We are talking about resources, and this is clearly a big issue and has echoed through the debate tonight. He talked about the oversight of the local authority national inspections programme. There is an issue with staff, their appointment and setting all of that in motion. We have heard about the recruitment challenges and the issues related to that. He talked about the co-ordination and supporting of staff training. That is a big issue, in particular for the local authorities. Will he touch on that? He does not need to repeat something that has already been said because it will be in the official record, but this relates to the issues of recruitment.

Dr. Marie Archbold:

The Senator mentioned the five EPA staff. They are in place now.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know parts of that were dealt with earlier.

Dr. Marie Archbold:

They are all in place and LAWPRO answered that it has the allocation of four staff in train too, to get them into position. Our Department's responsibility is to identify and ensure a budget is allocated to provide training for all of these aspects from the national agricultural inspection programme under the broader remit of the river basin management plan. I might hand over to our colleagues in LAWPRO, which is the arm that ensures training is delivered to local authority staff and other water managers in the State.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will turn to Ms Keegan in a moment. On one hand, we talk about the importance and we realise this is enforcement. There is clearly a need for shared services and synergies because there is a disconnect with all of the different stakeholders. That is not a criticism, but it is obvious to everyone. If we are going to lead by example, we are not talking about training people. We are a bit down the road from all of that. In terms of instilling confidence in the people involved, we have to be able to say we are up to our game and we have the people in place. We heard tonight about recruitment programmes and it is definitely about recruiting people, but are we really serious about tackling this issue if we are still in the process of trying to train people? It is all about resources. Who is really committed to addressing the issue? We see the finger-pointing in a particular direction all the time, but there are many aspects and many sides to this debate. My takeaway from listening in from my office and to the ongoing debates is the disconnect between all of the different groups and the lack of the co-ordination. That is not deliberate, but it is the nature of it. We need a bigger overarching umbrella on the issue, but Ms Keegan might elaborate on that.

Dr. Fiona Kelly:

On training, LAWPRO advocates for an integrated catchment management approach. Key to that is ensuring all those stakeholders are informed and that they understand it is a catchment-scale problem and that we need to tackle it. We have already delivered training to a number of different agencies. We delivered training to 48 ASSAP advisers, 72 members of the Agricultural Consultants Association, 70 staff members from the ACRES co-operation project, as well as 100 public local authority staff. As the Senator said, it is key to instil that confidence in them to be able to make the correct decision. We are doing that.

LAWPRO also has a co-ordination role. One of our jobs is to co-ordinate across all the different implementation bodies through our regional committees. That is something on which we work very closely with our colleagues here.

On recruitment, once approval was sought, we very quickly put panels in place. We are putting people on the ground who are appropriately trained and confident in decision-making.

On leading by example, LAWPRO already has an approach, outlined by Ms Hennessy, of working from the date we have, bringing it down to ground level and providing the information to ASSAP advisers in order that they can, with confidence, go to farmers and say that based on this very local assessment, this is what needs to happen, and if they take these actions, it will bring about improvements in water quality. That is what we are all here to try to achieve.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hear that. LAWPRO, its partnership with Teagasc and ASSAP were touched on. It was said that LAWPRO got involved in and submitted a bid for the funding on the competitive call under the EIP. We know that has a budget of €60 million that is being allocated over five years, of which €50 million is going directly to farmers. Will LAWPRO tell us a little more about that? Where is it now? What is the timeframe for the allocation of this €50 million that will go to farmers? It is a nice narrative that €50 million will go to farmers. It is a great line, but when and how will it go to farmers? What are the criteria for them to benefit from it? When will they see the colour of the money? Where will they have to channel it through? What is the conditionality around the allocation of that money to farmers?

Mr. Anthony Coleman:

I will address that. I will also bring in my colleague Ms Hennessy. The Farming for Water EIP has already started. We have done a number of pilots throughout the country with our partners in Teagasc and Dairy Industry Ireland. The first payment of grants has already been processed to farmers. The initial cohort will target farmers who went through the ASSAP programme. There were 8,000 referrals from LAWPRO to ASSAP in the priority action areas. ASSAP will now go back to those farmers to invite them to make applications over the next period.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, what is the next period?

Mr. Anthony Coleman:

The coming months.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is months. Okay.

Mr. Anthony Coleman:

Straight away, we are already receiving applications. I referred to a number of pilots we already have in County Kerry, and we are working with Dairygold and Tirlán in the Slane area. Applications are already in progress. We are expanding that programme and putting new systems in place, but we want to get grants paid out in respect of those applications to farmers as soon as they put in measures and reach the target of 15,000 farmers as early as possible. It is set out over a number of years, but if we can get more applications in at an earlier stage, that would be a good problem. I will ask Ms Hennessy to expand a little further on the process, where some of the measures will be going, and what work will be required on the ground.

Ms Ruth Hennessy:

It is important to remember that the grant scheme is almost at phase 2. LAWPRO and ASSAP were established in 2018 to address the problem of agriculture impacting on water quality and to identify the specific issues and actions required. No funding was in place for those additional measures until now. That funding is now in place so phase 2 can start. Phase 2 is where ASSAP can go back to the farmers it initially engaged with, who may not have implemented measures because of the lack of funding, and channel those applications through funding. That targeted science information has already been provided in those areas. We will continue to do that and expand into new areas as the programme grows. It is very much building on work that has been done already, building on the knowledge that is there, and using those connections and the process that is already there.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will make a comment; I am not really looking for an answer. What Ms Hennessy outlined is very positive. Some of these initiatives are somewhat lost in the bigger, dare I say it, agri-politics forum, or whatever you like to call it. We talk about simplification in the context of agricultural schemes, and this is another example of it. We could do more to explain all of that and tell the good story. It is all positive. I will leave it at that.

I will quickly turn to IFI. It made a very interesting submission, in particular, in the context of its statement that "In IFI's experience, challenges to compliance most often relate to organic fertiliser management". The IFI submission also indicates that additional supports could be included. Support for investment in storage infrastructure was mentioned, as was an increase in training supports for farmers, contractors and advisers. I am not too sure we need an increase in training. Is it that people are not taking up the training? A great deal seems to be going on. Is it that people are somehow resistant to training? Do they feel it is beyond them or that it is too much of a science or is too complicated? Are people taking up the training? I am not convinced - the witnesses can tell me - that there is a lack of additional supports for training and information. I do not know whether farmers have the capacity and time to engage to that extent. Is it becoming too much of a science? Again, can we simplify all of that? The IFI representatives might comment on their observations of the need for training and their experience in that regard.

Mr. Brian Beckett:

Our experience on the ground is that it is not just about farmers. It is a bigger picture question-----

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree.

Mr. Brian Beckett:

-----that is about the value of water. It is about the public good associated with clean water in our surface water systems, including our lakes, rivers, and even in the marine environment. It is a connecting the dots question. From our perspective, we all take water a little for granted. We meet many people on the ground who have specific challenges relating to things such as storage, including defects in storage facilities, leaking soil water, poor spreading practice and these kind of things. People are busy just making a living.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand.

Mr. Brian Beckett:

We feel a very important message needs to get out there around connecting the dots about just how important it is to have clean water available to all members of society. That is part of our endorsement for more training. It is more an awareness campaign than training as such. In our experience, the penetration of training is at a certain level, but there certainly could be more training on technical issues. That is our experience on the ground. The bigger picture message we were trying to convey, however, was the importance of water itself and how we can all do our bit to ensure good water quality in our catchments.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We do not hear a great deal about the marine environment. We know it is a problem and a challenge, but we do not hear a great deal of particular emphasis being placed on it. We tend to hear about water and agriculture but not the marine environment. We live in an environment where all water is precious and is a commodity that needs to be protected and minded. It is rich resource that needs to be minded. Does IFI have particular concerns about the marine environment?

Mr. Brian Beckett:

In terms of water quality in the marine-----

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In terms of the marine environment.

Mr. Brian Beckett:

Specifically in relation to nitrogen and our estuaries, there are certainly challenges. We have a brief in respect of fish. Fish that are migratory, including species such as salmon that travel out to sea, have to go through these environments to get to their feeding grounds. Due to climate and other challenges, even when they get to their feeding grounds, they are not guaranteed a meal, unfortunately. We believe that is what is happening.

Those environments where water quality is impacted, in particular, the estuarine environment, are a kind of bottleneck for our migrating fish species. On nitrogen in particular, in some of the challenged catchments, there are serious challenges for water quality, excessive plant growth, etc., which are associated with nitrogen.

When we get the equation right in our catchments on the land side, we will get the equation right in our marine environment as well. Some of the really endangered species, such as salmon, are down to 2% in returning fish, but would have had 15% in recent enough years. We will then get a better return, or we will at least give them as good an opportunity as possible for survival. That is where we are coming from regarding fisheries.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all the witnesses for their time. This has been a long session. There have been many sessions on this particular issue, so we really value the witnesses’ time and I thank them for joining us here tonight.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We appreciate the witnesses’ contributions today, as well as the papers they gave us. These will form part of our preparation of a report, which we intend to take to the Commission in Brussels. Our last witnesses will be the EPA, which will do its latest report at the end of May or the beginning of June. When we get its submission, we will put the report together and we hope to take that to Brussels.

I really appreciate the very thoughtful and insightful presentations. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank the four groups that came to us this evening.

I will now move the adjournment. The next public meeting of the committee will be at 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 10 April, when the committee will engage with the chairperson designate of Bord Bia and will receive a briefing from the Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development, DG AGRI, regarding the antitrust guidelines for sustainability agreements and agriculture. As there is no further business, the meeting now stands adjourned.