New anti-water pollution initiatives are doomed if they are not reinforced by an environmental tax on phosphate fertilisers, according to an angling body which has taken its case for better protection of Irish lakes and rivers to Europe.
In a submission to the European Commission in response to State moves to curb over-application of phosphates in farming, Carra Mask Angling Federation says "at last the State is properly acknowledging the extent of water deterioration, and that many lakes are under threat".
The federation believes the case for a similar tax on phosphate-rich detergents is also overwhelming as their presence in water increases costs in treating urban waste discharges. Such taxes would immediately reduce phosphate applications, it says.
It has lodged complaints with the Commission about poor lake quality caused by eutrophication (nutrient enrichment induced by phosphates).
The Commission threatened to take the Government to court for failure to control discharges into waters as required by EU directive.
The Department of the Environment responded with the publication of a strategy, Managing Ireland's Rivers and Lakes.
In its submission, the federation welcomes the strategy but finds it flawed and unrealistic. "The problem can only be addressed by imposition of a tax on phosphate fertilisers. Applying the `polluter pays' principle is the only method by which usage will be reduced."
It alleges the Department of Agriculture is inhibiting movement in this direction. It believes Teagasc's efforts to reduce phosphate are commendable but weakened by absence of a tax.
EU and Irish policies have fostered unsustainable agricultural practices which led to the current environmental problems, it says. There may now be a change of official attitude but it has reservations about local authorities having responsibility for identifying problem farms within each catchment.
More intensive monitoring of their "nutrient status" is required, and penalties (by reducing direct payments to farmers) need to be applied to farmers who repeatedly fail to stick to farm nutrient management plan terms.
It welcomes, nonetheless, a move to set up a soil and management database for each catchment in tandem with a nutrient management plan under the responsibility of local authorities. But "very few if any of the local authorities have the staff or the experience to adequately oversee a programme of nutrient management", it says.
Environment sections in many local authorities were dominated by civil engineers while there were few specialists in ecology and agriculture.
The strategy would be strengthened, it suggests, by: curbing phosphate in critical sources such as more intensive farms; fine-tuning the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme; financial commitments towards a proposal to put details of 800 lakes on a database; accepting the principle that some catchments may be more sensitive than others, and determining a schedule of "permissible levels of interference" in each; curbing forestry where soil has low buffering capacity; extending the EU Urban Wastewater Directive by requiring tertiary sewage treatment in areas of population of less than 10,000, if they are phosphate-sensitive; further study of over-grazing effects.
If these are not embraced, there is a risk that Irish lakes will "change from being an amenity/ ecological resource - playing its part in maintaining sustainable industry by providing quality water - to being a liability", it warns.
