Nitrate loss is most common in freely draining soils, where it leaches readily to groundwater
before being discharged into river systems and onwards to estuaries and coastal waters where it
causes water quality problems. In the freely draining catchments in the south east, nitrate losses
are closely correlated with farm intensity: the higher the application of nitrate to land, the higher
the nitrate concentrations in waters. Nitrogen losses from these catchments in the south east
of the country continue to rise, and are over double the annual losses from catchments in the
west.
Nitrate ranges recorded across the country during the 2022 WaterBlitz
Closer look at nitrate ranges of samples at different locations during the Waterblitz
Phosphate ranges recorded across the country during the 2022 WaterBlitz.
Closer look at phosphate ranges of samples at different locations during the Waterblitz.
DAFM Training Requirements for New and Existing Nitrates Derogation Applicants 2022
There are approx 6800 farms in derogation, and each one would have approx 100 pages of records in the DAFM database (generally in pdf format with things like farm maps, soil sample results, fertiliser accounts etc). Inspection data (5% of derogation farms are inspected) is held in a different DAFM system
Basic statistical information on nitrates derogation is published
2015-2021 Derogation Herd Locations per LEA – Datasets – data.gov.ie
2021 is the most recent complete data available, as 2022 applicants have until 31 March 2023 to submit support documents
The attached gives an idea of the data collected in by DAFM (and held in the derogation register, which is known as the AgSchemes Nitrates Derogation System)
As the DAFM data is only available in A4 pdfs, it’s not easy to map herd locations against nitrates
This is best available data
Ireland’s nitrates derogation allows farmers to farm at higher stocking rates, above 170 kg livestock manure nitrogen/ha up to 250 nitrogen/ha
Notes:
Data for DAFM ranked by number of herds
There is no public DAFM data available by farm, or by townland
The data does not give an indication of actual stocking levels on the farms
There is no easy way to map the data against catchments with nitrates pollution.
The data is number of derogation applications submitted (it may differ from actual number of derogation herds due to applications deleted, in draft when numbers published, or applications ‘under query’)
Download:
EC Reporting on water pollution by nitrates and action programmes taken in vulnerable zones.
Member States shall, in respect of the four-year period following the notification of this Directive and in respect of each subsequent four-year period, submit a report to the Commission containing the information outlined in Annex V.
Note: While the reporting comes from the EPA, they have confirmed that the summary text on farm activities, measures and inspections etc included in the report come directly from the Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine (DAFM).
The raw data on the farm activities, measures and inspections used by DAFM to create the summary in the report is held by DAFM
For the EPA’s annual assessment of water quality in relation to the nitrates derogation, DAFM provides the EPA with an image/map of the derogation farm locations. The most recent report, which includes the image/map of 2020 Derogation Herd Locations, is available on the EPA website. https://www.epa.ie/publications/monitoring–assessment/freshwater–marine/nitrogen-and-phosphorus-concentrations-in-irish-waters-2020.php
Reports are filed here:
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)
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.
Nitrate is an issue in the estuary.
A wider implementation of additional specific measures for nitrogen would be needed in the catchment to address this.
Example of where pollution is wider than the catchment under consideration by the current LAWPRO PAA
Source: WFD National Technical Implementation Group, Minutes May 2020
“Nanny PAA: Initial Local Characterisation Assessment has identified nutrient issues in the PAA, however these issues are coming from an upstream area that is not within this PAA. Therefore, ASSAP are not currently working in these areas. At present, LAWPRO do not expect improvement in this PAA by the end of the 2 nd Cycle in 2021. Hence, the Nanny should be considered as a PAA for Cycle 3 with an enlarged catchment area that includes these upstream areas with nutrient issues”
Desktop study for Lower Nanny
Note: list of PAAs where catchment assessment is impacted by pressures upstream of the area under consideration
