The Republic needs tighter controls on farm pollution of rivers and lakes, the legal adviser to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has indicated.
The advocate general, whose opinion is influential in ECJ decisions, was delivering her conclusions on a case taken by environmental group An Taisce against the Government’s nitrates action programme (Nap).
The nitrates programme is meant to regulate livestock manure and slurry so that run-off into rivers and lakes is limited, as nitrates can cause severe ecological damage.
The State has a nitrates derogation from the European Commission that enables farmers to have more cattle per hectare of land than is permitted in other countries, but on the basis that the nitrates programme works.
READ MORE
An Taisce has argued this is not the case, with monitoring by State and EU agencies showing waterways are declining and that agriculture is the main culprit.
The organisation challenged the nitrates programme in the High Court, but the proceedings were adjourned after Judge Richard Humphries sought ECJ clarification on what exactly European Union law requires from the programme.
Advocate general Juliane Kokott delivered her opinion on Thursday, raising several issues with the Government’s approach to nitrate controls to date.
She emphasised that compliance with water protection laws under the Water Framework Directive must be prioritised in any nitrates programme regardless of what derogations existed.
She also highlighted the lack of assessment at individual farm level of the impact of allowing more livestock and further pollution.
“In the absence of any individual or group assessment, reasonable scientific doubt still remains that adverse effects on Natura 2000 sites [natural habitats] as a result of nitrogen deposition are precluded in the event of increased application to the land,” she said.
Kokott also said the law required that the Government show how it considered alternatives to the nitrates programme.
It was necessary “to be able to understand how the effects on the environment have been taken into account in the decision to select the adopted plan or programme in comparison with the alternatives dealt with”.
Advocate general opinions are not binding but are influential in decisions made by the ECJ, which is due to deliver its formal ruling on the issues later this year.
An Taisce welcomed Kokott’s opinion and said it cast doubt over continuation of the nitrates derogation.
Elaine Goff, head of advocacy at the organisation, said: “The objective here is simple. We want Ireland to be a country that can provide and protect clean water.
“From our knowledge and understanding, the State has not provided the assessments and cannot provide the assurances that the Nap will not worsen water quality or undermine the environmental objectives of EU directives.”
The Government is defending An Taisce’s challenge.
The Irish Farmers Association which campaigned vigorously to retain the nitrates derogation said its legal team was studying the opinion.
“Our initial view is that some aspects may be of concern,” a spokesman said.
