An Taisce welcomes the opportunity to comment on this 6th Nitrates Action Programme (NAP) consultation. 

To read the full document please click this link.

Article 10 of the European Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive (2001/42/ EC) states that the significant environmental effects of implementing a plan/programme shall be monitored in order, inter alia, to identify at an early stage unforeseen adverse effects and to be able to undertake appropriate remedial action. The SEA environmental report highlights the various monitoring of water quality which is underway, and concludes the following:

“It is considered that the existing monitoring and reporting in relation to water quality is sufficient to identify unforeseen adverse effects on water quality arising from implementation of the Sixth NAP in order to allow for appropriate remedial action to be taken.”

However, the majority of this monitoring has been ongoing for over a decade, and in that time agriculture has continued to be the dominant pressure on our water quality, all evidenced via the EPA data. Despite this, no remedial action ever appears to have been taken at a national level to strengthen the measures in the NAP. Indeed, there was an acknowledgement in the last SEA for the 5th NAP that multiple previous NAPs had failed to adequately address agricultural water pollution. The target outlined in Table 9.3 of the SEA Environmental Statement for water is ‘No water bodies impacted by agricultural nutrients’. We are a long way off ever achieving that, with little change for the better in that regard over previous NAPs. This is particularly concerning, as the remedial action provided for in that table for water pollution is increased inspection and compliance, which we know is at a very low level. The efficacy of the measures for addressing the water pollution causes would be a critical factor here, given we are now on our 6th NAP and have no evidence base for what the measures might achieve in terms of water quality outcomes.

While increasing compliance is necessary, perfectly implemented ineffective measures will not address the problem at hand, and given we don’t know if the measures work this is not a credible remedial action. As such, we are of the view that while the monitoring is adequate, the remedial action on foot of what those reports are highlighting has been entirely absent, in contravention of the legal requirement in Article 10 of the SEA Directive.