Group says £700m plan not protecting water

THE European Union's £700 million scheme to promote environmentally friendly farming here is not strict enough to protect Ireland's freshwater lakes and rivers, an expert group has claimed.

Teagasc, the farm advisory body, is examining whether controls are sufficient to prevent chemical pollution due to excess phosphorus discharges from farm sources. The EU is also understood to be monitoring controls applied under its Rural Environmental Protection Scheme (REPS), which could lead to legal action being taken against Irish authorities for failing to exert sufficient control over discharges into waters.

REPS, which is a vital source of income for many farmers, particularly in the west of Ireland, is the EU's main scheme for promoting environment conscious farming. The Department of Agriculture expects to pay out £49.5 million in REPS this year to 17,000 farmers, and about £700 million over a five year period, provided a target of 45,000 qualifying farmers is reached.

But the spending has not had the desired affect. The expert committee, which includes fishery board and Environmental Protection Agency representatives, has warned that the west's most important fishing lakes are at serious risk.

The group is examining the conditions of Lough Mask and Lough Conn in Mayo under the auspices of Mayo County Council. It has warned that the threat from phosphate wastes and runoffs - arising primarily from adding fertiliser and slurry to land - could imperil all major salmonid rivers and lakes.

Fertiliser and slurry applications on farms make up by far the biggest contributor to the discharges, the group said. It is evaluating deterioration in the water quality of Lough Mask and Lough Conn.

Its preliminary findings have prompted a call for much stricter controls on phosphorus levels in soils which, if introduced, could have dramatic implications for Irish agriculture. Phosphorus, whether in the form of fertiliser or slurry, is used to boost farming output.

The Mayo group, made up of representatives of State agencies, has warned clearly that the discharge of farm wastes in the form of phosphates - compounds containing phosphorus - from slurry and fertiliser, which "run off" soils, pose a risk of long term environmental damage to major waterways in the region.

In correspondence with the Department of Agriculture and Teagasc the group contended that REPS regulations were not strict enough to curb what could lead to permanent damage to waterways - not only in terms of their ability to host salmon and trout, but also with regard to their drinking water quality.

In a letter to the Department and Teagasc seen by The Irish Times, the expert group stated: "The object of REPS is to ensure the pursuance of environmentally sensitive farming practices. It is the committee's opinion that adherence to the current levels will not achieve that objective."

Current level of phosphorus loading on Irish soils was such that "urgent action is needed if this ongoing accumulation is not to lead to an intractable long term pollution problem."

What is happening to the lakes and rivers as a consequence is a process called eutrophication, where substances such as phosphorus upset the water's chemical balance. The phosphate loading of water (which is also contributed to by domestic waste, including sewage and detergents) could put all the major salmon id rivers and lakes at risk and impact seriously on drinking water quality and amenity value of our surface waters.

The committee points to scientific evidence that farmers were wasting money applying phosphate in fertiliser when soils such as those used for grazing or silage reach a certain phosphorous level. Citing growing evidence, it called for a phosphate limit of five milligrammes per kilogramme of Morgan's P potash to be applied as a maximum under the terms of REPS. This is considerably stricter than current limits but would not adversely impact on farm productivity, it insisted.

It is understood the proposal is being resisted by the Department of Agriculture and Teagasc which, nevertheless, acknowledged "a growing body of evidence indicating that critical levels should be reduced". While the latter initially said the evidence was not sufficient to justify an immediate change, stricter limits are being considered, according to a senior research officer at its Research and Development Centre in Johnstown Castle, Co Wexford.

The committee's chairman, Mayo County Engineer Mr Joe Beirne, said the correspondence in question was not in the public domain but pointed out, nevertheless, that while the committee had yet to get a formal response from the agricultural bodies, the EPA and the Department of the Environment appreciated its concerns. They're listening to us but there's no change on the standards set. It's not a case that is going to resolve itself overnight. There are many implications, particularly with REPS."

The Department of Agriculture disputes the case for stricter phosphorus limits. REPS participants must follow an agri environmental plan drawn up by approved professional planners in accordance with detailed specifications.

"This involves implementing a nutrient management plan based on crop requirements and which minimises environmental hazards. Participant farmers must comply with land spreading precautions relating to both animal manures and chemical fertilisers. For example, no animal manures can be spread within 20 metres of a lake" it said.

A soil test must be carried out where chemical or organic phosphorus is applied. REPS participants cannot exceed the level of phosphorus use recommended by Teagasc based on soil test results. When soil phosphate levels are found to be high, no phosphorus can be applied and, accordingly, solid phosphate levels will decline.

Where the soil phosphate level is found to be satisfactory, the use level is confined to maintenance levels only, i.e. the soil phosphate level should not increase - only what is depleted from soil is replaced.