Source: SEA STATEMENT, Ireland’s Fifth Nitrates Action Programme
Article 26(1): It is recommended that DAFM maintains a record of all convictions undertaken under Article 26 and that this record is published on an annual basis to provide a transparent record for the public on compliance with the NAP.
Record is maintained but not published and no plans to change this in the Regs.
Current wording of Article 26(1)
Article 26(12) is the section on record keeping
Article 27: It is recommended that DAFM publicises the results of the monitoring and evaluation in relation to farm practices to allow for the information available to the EPA and the local authorities to be available to the wider public.
Record is maintained but not published and no plans to change this in the Regs.
Article 27 outlines the record keeping requirements
General Mitigation: In the interests of transparency, it is recommended that DAFM publishes the register of holdings that have been authorised to operate under the derogation as well as associated documentation for these holdings (application data, inspection reports, enforcement action, etc.) but excluding any commercial data.
Such a move would provide communities with greater information on the measures to protect the environment in these rural areas and increase confidence in the consent and enforcement processes.
These records are maintained by DAFM and available to designated agencies but DAFM do not propose to publish this register as this contains commercially sensitive information on holdings.
Article 36(2): It is recommended that DAFM establishes and publishes a clear decision making framework for granting of applications under the derogation that is based on the water quality evidence base available.
This framework may include spatial elements whereby applications may be refused in catchments of concern or nutrient sensitive areas and/or other elements such as compliance history, operator performance, etc
DAFM considers the current application process transparent and does not propose to publish any additional information. Note that the significantly increased enforcement regime (see Article 37) will be used to drive greater compliance of these holdings.
Article 37: It is recommended that the report prepared by DAFM for the Commission in June of each year on the monitoring and compliance of the implementation of the derogation should be made available to the public to ensure full transparency on compliance levels and environmental impacts of the holdings operating under the derogation.
This report will continue to be prepared but it is not proposed to publish this report for the public under this NAP.
Article 37: It is recommended that DAFM undertakes a review if the resourcing available to the local authorities to undertake inspections for holdings that operate under the derogations. This should include both quantity (number of personnel, number of inspections) and quality (qualifications, training) of the resources to ensure that these are fit for purpose in all local authorities. Where gaps in resources are identified, DAFM should make available the necessary funding/training as appropriate to ensure that the levels of enforcement within the State are both appropriate and consistent.
NAP AIEs (21/3/22)
- Under the AIE Regs to request details of the records of the monitoring and evaluation in relation to farm practices received by the EPA from DAFM under the Fourth NAP
- Under the AIE Regs to request details of the records of the monitoring and evaluation in relation to farm practices (as forwarded to EPA and local authorities) under the Fourth NAP
- Under the AIE Regs to request details of the records of convictions under the Fourth NAP
- Under the AIE Regs to request a copy of the register of holdings that have been authorised to operate under the derogation as well as associated documentation for these holdings (application data, inspection reports, enforcement action, etc.) but excluding any commercial data, under the Fourth NAP
Response from DAFM (30/3/22)
I have been in contact with the relevant division and they have given me the following information:
“Convictions are not within the remit of this Division, but is for Local Authorities. This request is proper to the Department of Housing.”
Response from Housing (31/3/22)
I have liaised with the relevant business unit and they have confirmed that the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage does not maintain a record of convictions under the Good Agricultural Practices regulations. Under the 2017 Regulations, that give effect to the fourth Nitrates Action Programme (NAP), a prosecution for a summary offence can be taken by a local authority or the EPA. As a result, you will need to contact these bodies for the information you require.
The recommendation that DAFM maintains a record of all convictions was a suggestion for inclusion in the fifth NAP, which only came into effect with the signing of the 2022 Good Agricultural Practices regulations earlier this month.
Contacted EPA to rule them in or out as the authority that maintains records under the 4th NAP (31/3/22)
If the EPA don’t (and it’s unlikely) then perhaps the local authorities maintain their own reports?
Note:
In 2020, DAFM carried out 733 full cross-compliance inspections on farms, down from 1,422 in 2019. Of the 733 full cross-compliance inspections, 89 resulted in farmers being hit with a financial penalty under SMR 1 – the protection of water against pollution caused by nitrates.
Additional clarification from Housing (4/4/22)
Each local authority maintains their own records on prosecutions. The local authorities collated the number of inspections annually under various headings. This data was summarised and provided annually to the EPA for the EPA Inspection and Enforcement Activity Reports, which are available on the EPA website.
As part of the fifth Nitrates Action Programme, the EPA will be the competent authority for tracking the inspections.
DHLGH does not hold information on prosecutions or convictions in relation to the GAP Inspections.
Local Authorities cross-report non-compliance to DAFM. DAFM can then penalise farm holders by applying a penalty on their basic payment. DAFM do not hold data on local authority convictions.