Heydon: 'Impactful measures' on water quality being developed for next NAP
That is according to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Martin Heydon, who has confirmed that officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage are currently working on the next NAP, which is due to apply from January 2026.
Minister Heydon told the Dáil yesterday (Thursday, July 3) that Ireland's current NAP "introduced significant changes and is providing the strongest protections to date nationally for water quality from an agricultural perspective".
However he was asked by the Cork North-Central TD, Pádraig O'Sullivan, if he was satisfied that the 6th NAP "would ensure no further erosion of the maximum organic manure limits from 220 kg N/ha".
According to Minister Heydon the government has a twin objective of "improving water quality and retaining Ireland's nitrates derogation post-2025".
"I am confident a combination of current and future measures under the NAP, combined with a continuation of the existing significant commitment and engagement by the entire agri-food sector will translate into improved water quality," the minister told Deputy O'Sullivan.
Minister Heydon also told the Dáil that the latest water quality monitoring report from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), published this week, showed a "significant reduction in nitrates levels in our rivers last year".
The EPA's 'Water Quality Monitoring Report on Nitrogen and Phosphorous Concentrations in Irish Waters 2024' provides an update on the results of water quality monitoring to support the assessment of the impact of the nitrates derogation on Irish waters.
However in the report the agency warned that 'nitrate concentrations remain too high in many parts of the country'.
The EPA also acknowledged that there was a 10% national reduction in river nitrate concentrations during 2024, 'with reductions observed in all regions'.
According to its analysis overall nitrogen levels in rivers also reduced nationally in 2024 compared to 2023.
Minister Heydon has warned that "having a robust NAP in place, is an essential component in our case to justify continuation of our nitrates derogation".
He said: "Along with my colleagues in government, I will continue to engage over the coming months with the objective of giving the commission the assurances it needs to justify granting a continuation of our nitrates derogation.
"Ultimately the European Commission will decide the conditionality attached to that derogation, including that maximum permitted stocking rates.
"However, in accordance with the Programme for Government, the government will continue doing everything in its power to make the case at EU level to secure the best outcome post-2025."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
2 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Trump claims victory on trade - but EU had little choice
In many respects US President Donald Trump achieved his aims by introducing a swath of tariffs with America's main trading partners around the world. The European Union has a population of 448 million compared to the US which has 340 million. However, the US economy is larger. Many have been surprised at the way Donald Trump has appeared to be able to dictate terms to Europe. His announcement yesterday that he would commence the new tariff arrangements from 7 August appeared to be his decision with little input from the EU. President of the European Commission Ursula Von Der Leyen has defended the deal, which will see tariffs of 15% imposed on EU goods. There are two reasons why the EU did not want a full blown trade war with Mr Trump. Firstly, European businesses were opposed to a prolonged period of tit-for-tat tariffs with enormously damaging consequences. Secondly, if relations with Mr Trump soured, he could threaten to row back on defence commitments. The EU is highly reliant on the US for arm supplies, funding for NATO and military support for Ukraine. But looking at scale of tariffs imposed on other countries the EU's 15% does not seem too damaging compared to India's 25%, Canada's 35% and Switzerland's 39%. Most of the US' main trading partners have rates of 15% or 20%. The exception is the UK's 10% tariff. However, this is not an all-inclusive rate. In other words, other rates can be added to it. Nor does Britain have a written agreement capping pharmaceutical tariffs unlike the EU. It is worth bearing in mind that while tariffs on European goods go up, Mr Trump stated the EU would be "opening up their countries at zero tariffs" for US exports. Unanswered questions From the Irish point of view there are still many unanswered questions. There is no agreement on alcohol exports to the US. That sector was expected to be covered by a zero-for-zero tariff arrangement but that has not yet been confirmed. This is critical for Ireland's whiskey industry and the EU's wine exports. It seems clear that pharmaceuticals and computer chips will face tariffs of up to 15%, but the timing is still uncertain. Both are subject of so-called Section 232 investigations because Mr Trump believes the US' use of imports is a national security issue. Tánaiste Simon Harris said the tariffs for sectors under investigation will not become clear until those processes are concluded. For pharmaceuticals that is expected to happen in two weeks. But the fact that the EU-US agreement won't exceed 15% does provide some clarity for the industry. Bank of Ireland pointed out that drugs are relatively inelastic, which means if prices go up people still buy them because they are prescribed by doctors. The new swath of tariffs come at a time when the dollar has been weakening and making EU exports to the US more expensive at the worst possible time. Then there is the question of what this all means for the Irish economy. In March, the Department of Finance and the Economic Social Research Institute published research on the impact of tariffs on the Irish economy. It looks at a range of scenarios from tariffs of 10% to 25%. Based on that analysis, officials at the Department of Finance told business leaders yesterday that the economy would continue to expand, but at a slower pace than previously expected. Employment will grow but at a slower rate. The Government will now have to decide how all this will impact the Budget in October. But while Mr Trump may believe he has achieved his aims on tariffs, in the long run his actions carry the risk of higher inflation in the US and undermining the American economy.
Sunday World
3 hours ago
- Sunday World
Ex-Provo says he's proud IRA chiefs asked him to tell world their war was over
Séanna Walsh became the first IRA man for decades to stand in front of a camera and talk on behalf of the organisation without a mask Seanna Walsh, announces that IRA leadership has formally ordered an end to its armed campaign in 2005. The former Provo who told the world the IRA's war was over has revealed it remains one of the proudest moments of his life – but he had to get his daughters' approval first. Séanna Walsh spoke to the Sunday World on the week of the 20th anniversary of the jaw-dropping statement that declared an end to the IRA's violent campaign which saw them murder more than 1,700 people. On July 28, 2005, Séanna became the first IRA man for decades to stand in front of a camera and talk on behalf of the organisation without a mask. In a DVD that was distributed all over the world, he said the terrorist group was laying down its arms and was committing to a new peaceful strategy of achieving its goal of a united Ireland. Not everyone believed them but 20 years on only the most diehard unionist would argue that the IRA still exists as a violent force. Seanna Walsh, announces that IRA leadership has formally ordered an end to its armed campaign in 2005. Séanna (68) reveals this week why he thinks he was chosen to deliver that message, how he had check it was okay with his family first and how he feels about it 20 years later. While a number of ceasefires had been announced and collapsed since 1994, the 2005 statement saw the start of the decommissioning of weapons. The IRA statement delivered by Séanna said that members had been instructed to use exclusively peaceful means and not to engage in any other activities whatsoever. 'I had to be unmasked,' says Séanna – now a Sinn Féin Belfast city councillor – told the Sunday World. 'It had to be that way because we were doing something different. 'It was the defining moment of my life as a republican and I'm very proud of the fact the IRA leadership asked me to be the person to read the statement. 'I wasn't wearing a mask because we had to move away from that but I wasn't worried because I was quite convinced the days of the armed conflict were over. Séanna Walsh reflects on delivering historic IRA statement 20 years on News in 90 Seconds, Friday August 1 'It was made in the grounds of the Roddy's (Roddy McCorley's Club) and there's a museum there today and you can push the button and play the video and actually there's a recording of me reading the statement in English but also in Irish.' Walsh was a 48-year-old father-of-three when he made the statement which lasted just over four minutes and was filmed in the grounds of the west Belfast club. By then he'd already been in jail three times for his role in violent republicanism – in fact by the time he was released in 1998 he'd spent more time behind bars than out – and his track record was one of the reasons he believes he was chosen to read out the statement. 'I didn't ask them why I was chosen,' says Walsh. 'I was approached by an IRA comrade and that's as much as I can say. I suppose it's because I was confident enough to do it. 'I think they asked me because of the fact I'd served time in the Cages (Long Kesh), where I first met Bobby Sands, and where I shared a cell with him and we became very close friends. 'Then during the hunger strike period I was back in the H-Blocks and suffered the abuse of the blanket protest and was then in charge of the H-Blocks after Bik McFarlane stood down. 'On being released I went back to the struggle and was recaptured a third time and sentenced to 22 years the third time and was finally released in 1998. 'When I was asked would I be prepared to be the one to read the statement to camera and this would go out globally, I had to take a step back and I told them I'll have to think about this because I have three daughters, two of which were teens and the other was only a child. 'I needed to sit down and go through it all with my family – my wife is a long-standing republican in her own right and shared a cell in jail in Armagh with Mairéad Farrell for a number of years. 'So my wife was okay with it and the girls were absolutely supportive – the one thing I was most concerned about was the way that stuff like this can impact on their opportunities to travel and them being at that age. 'So I sat down with them and talked it over with them and I came back and said 'yes I'll do it'. I was a bit concerned about putting myself above the parapet and making myself a target of abuse because we were putting it up to the establishment in a way we hadn't really done before.' For the record, Walsh was jailed for terrorist offences including robbing banks, having a rifle and being caught with explosives but he sticks by the controversial claim that there was 'no alternative'. But he says the growth of Sinn Féin in the Republic actually pushed the IRA closer to a ceasefire as they found Dublin a colder house than before. 'Nationalists and certainly republicans felt there was no alternative to armed struggle but when republicans were convinced that there was a viable alternative to ending British government interference in this part of Ireland without recourse to armed struggle, they jumped at it with both hands and grasped it,' he says. 'To talk about 2005 you really have to talk about the statement Gerry Adams made in April where he talks about the time is now right for the IRA to leave the stage. 'That triggered a whole period of consultation across the republican family... it was time for the IRA to leave the stage because it was leading to excuses on the part of other people, the people in opposition to ourselves. 'When you look back in the years when Sinn Féin was a political party and their strength lay in the North, the Dublin government were a lot less hostile after the IRA ceasefire but Sinn Féin's strength was growing in the south and they were becoming, as far as they were concerned, a threat politically to the southern establishment and that's when things started becoming problematic with the Dublin government.' He says the archives will show that neither unionism nor the British government believed his statement was completely genuine. 'If you look back at the archives the British downplayed it, the unionists totally poo-pooed it and even then later in the year when you had the statement from De Chastelain (chairman of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning), that he was satisfied guns had been put beyond use you still had this scepticism in unionism that didn't believe it.' Last weekend, Séanna took part in a discussion about his historic statement along with Gerry Adams, chaired by Mairéad Farrell TD – niece of IRA member Mairéad who was shot dead in Gibraltar – in Belfast's Balmoral Hotel. Speaking before the event, Gerry Adams voiced regret that the statement of 2005 took so long to come, suggesting the UK government was focused on 'defeating republicanism'. He said: 'It took decades and one of my regrets is that it took so long. In my humble opinion it took so long because the two governments, particularly the British government, only sought peace on its terms, which meant defeat the IRA, it meant defeat republicanism and that doesn't work, our people are resolute.' He added: 'The proof of it is that 20 years later the IRA isn't a feature.'
Irish Examiner
9 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Daniel O'Connell personified the perpetual importance of an independent Bar
On July 27, 1813, in the Court of King's Bench in Dublin, Daniel O'Connell rose to defend John Magee, publisher of the Dublin Evening Post, against a charge of criminal libel. His speech that day demonstrated how a skilled barrister could transform an oppressive legal system into an instrument of political change. The case of The King v. John Magee remains one of the most memorable examples of O'Connell's extraordinary ability to use his legal expertise in the service of justice and reform. The charge against Magee arose from his publication of a review criticising the departing Lord Lieutenant, the Duke of Richmond. The article condemned Richmond's errors in governing Ireland and compared him to the worst of his predecessors, who were described as 'the profligate unprincipled Westmorland, the cold-hearted and cruel Camden, the artful and treacherous Cornwallis'. More significantly, it challenged the fundamental principle of British rule in Ireland — 'a principle of exclusion, which debars the majority of the people from the enjoyment of those privileges that are possessed by the minority'. This was no ordinary libel case. As O'Connell understood, it was unavoidably a political case, and it demanded a political speech. The prosecution was designed to suppress dissent and maintain the exclusion of Ireland's Catholic majority from political participation. Attorney General William Saurin made this clear in his opening, describing Magee as a 'ruffian' whose purpose was 'to excite [in the minds of the population] hatred against those whom the laws have appointed to rule over them, and prepare them for revolution'. O'Connell faced formidable obstacles. The law of criminal libel was so broad that, as he later observed, 'every letter I ever published could be declared a libel' and the libel law could 'produce a conviction with a proper judge and jury for The Lord's Prayer with due legal inuendoes'. More damaging still was the composition of the jury — hand-picked to ensure conviction. With characteristic boldness, O'Connell confronted this unfairness head-on, telling the jurors: 'Gentlemen, he [the Attorney General] thinks he knows his men; he knows you; many of you signed the no-popery petition... you would not have been summoned on this jury if you had entertained liberal sentiments'. Rather than being cowed by these disadvantages, O'Connell turned them into weapons. He began by meeting Saurin's personal attacks, describing the Attorney General's speech as a 'farrago of helpless absurdity'. When Saurin had stooped to calling Magee a ruffian and comparing him to 'the keeper of a house of ill fame', O'Connell lamented how far Saurin fell below the standards of the great Irish barristers such as Curran and Ponsonby: 'Devoid of taste and of genius, how can he have had memory enough to preserve this original vulgarity — he is, indeed, an object of compassion; and, from my inmost soul, I bestow on him my forgiveness and my bounteous pity'. O'Connell was even able to use Saurin's own words against him. When the Attorney General accused Magee of Jacobinism, O'Connell recalled Saurin's defence of himself against the same charge in 1800, when Saurin, then anti-union, had declared that 'agitation is ... the price necessarily paid for liberty'. O'Connell's response was devastating: 'We have paid the price, gentlemen, and the honest man refuses to give us the goods'. What made O'Connell's defence truly remarkable was how he transformed a hopeless legal case into a powerful platform for political reform. His bold claim: 'the Catholic cause is on its majestic march — its progress is rapid and obvious... We will, we must, be soon emancipated' is electrifying even now. What must it have sounded like in his voice, in that court, in that trial, in those times? His confidence in his legal position was equally striking. When Saurin threatened to crush the Catholic Board, O'Connell declared: 'I am, if not a lawyer, at least a barrister. On this subject, I ought to know something; and I do not hesitate to contradict the Attorney General ... the Catholic Board is perfectly a legal assembly — that it not only does not violate the law, but that it is entitled to the protection of the law' Perhaps the most significant moment came not during the trial itself, but at the sentencing hearing on November 27, 1813. When Saurin attempted to use Magee's publication of O'Connell's defence speech as grounds for increasing Magee's sentence, O'Connell delivered what may be his most important statement on the role of the legal profession. In the face of personal threats of contempt and possible imprisonment following his denunciation of the Attorney General, O'Connell stood firm, delivering an impassioned defence of the importance of an independent Bar: 'It is the first interest of the public that the Bar shall be left free... the public are deeply interested in our independence; their properties, their lives, their honours, are entrusted to us; and if we, in whom such a guardianship is confided, be degraded, how can we afford protection to others?'. This was not merely professional self-interest, but a profound understanding of the Bar's constitutional role. In a system designed to exclude the majority from political participation, an independent legal profession became the last protection of individual rights. O'Connell grasped the fact that, without fearless advocates willing to challenge authority, the law would become merely an instrument of oppression. That is why, as the Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, put it when addressing the O'Connell 250 Symposium in Trinity College Dublin on Tuesday last, The Bar of Ireland has always been rightly proud of the fact that O'Connell was such a distinguished member of the Bar. Two hundred years later, the existence of a fearless independent Bar, practising advocacy and giving legal advice to the highest professional standards, remains an essential guarantee of the rule of law and the protection of individual rights. The many, often insidious, efforts that exist, whether prompted by powerful commercial, bureaucratic or political interests, to degrade or diminish the Bar are always, above all else, an attack on the rights of citizens and on the rule of law. O'Connell's performance in The King v. John Magee exemplifies the best traditions of forensic advocacy at The Bar of Ireland. Faced with a corrupt system, a biased tribunal, and impossible odds, he refused to bow his head or moderate his principles. Instead, he turned the forms and processes of an unjust and oppressive system against itself, using a political prosecution against dissenting speech as the means to condemn the oppressor and amplify the dissent. In an age when legal systems worldwide face challenges to their integrity and especially to the independence of barristers and advocates, O'Connell's example reminds us that the law's highest purpose is not merely to maintain order, but to secure justice. His defence of John Magee shows the difference a single barrister, armed with skill, courage, and unwavering principle, can make. Seán Guerin SC. Picture: Conor McCabe Photography. Seán Guerin SC is Chair of the Council of The Bar of Ireland
