I welcome Mr. John Sadlier, principal officer, Mr. Tim Morris, assistant principal officer, and Mr. Pat Duggan, senior adviser, all of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I also welcome Mr. Michael O'Donovan, principal officer, and Mr. Tom Quinlivan, inspector, of the Department of Agriculture and Food. They are here to discuss the impact of the nitrates action plan on intensive agricultural producers. I invite Mr. Sadlier to make his presentation.
Nitrates Action Plan: Presentation.
Mr. John Sadlier
I thank the joint committee for the opportunity to elaborate on where we are at present in regard to the implementation of the nitrates action programme. We have prepared a short three-page statement but I do not propose to read it all. I will concentrate on the main points.
We are dealing with the implementation of the nitrates directive which was adopted in 1991. The directive has been elaborated and clarified by numerous court judgments along the way. Our understanding of its requirements is now quite different from what we and other member states thought over the years. As now interpreted, the directive requires that an action programme be established and implemented in each member state to protect waters from pollution by agriculture and that an action programme be established and implemented at the latest by 19 December 1995. Clearly, we are long past that date.
The European Court of Justice delivered a judgment against Ireland in March 2004 that we were not compliant with the directive, mainly by virtue of the fact that we had not established or implemented an action programme. To respond to the court judgment adequately it was necessary for us to establish an action programme and draw up the necessary legislation to give it statutory effect. The current position is that our nitrates action programme has been finalised and was sent to the Commission in July 2005. In fact, that was a revised programme. The original programme that was sent in October 2004 was not considered adequate by the Commission so it had to be revised.
We are now in the process of developing the necessary regulations to give statutory effect to the programme. These regulations have been the subject of public consultation. A large number of submissions were received — 76 at the last count — and they have been reviewed by officials of the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Agriculture and Food. On foot of the submissions received we have identified a number of areas where the regulations might be amended. We have advised the European Commission to the effect that we would like to see some movement in the draft regulations. We hope to have a meeting with the Commission in the very near future. In fact, we hope the meeting will be on Friday.
There is an urgent need to make the regulations. They must be made during the first half of December because we want to advance our application for a derogation. A meeting of the nitrates committee will take place on Monday, 12 December and as we want to present our case at that meeting we must have the regulations in place. The final date for making the regulations is Friday, 9 December, the last working day before that meeting or, better still, as soon as possible.
The plan is to move forward with the application for the derogation with the objective of having a derogation agreed in mid-2006. In the light of discussions we have had with the Commission, we have also updated our application for a derogation. The first application was sent in November 2004 but a revised programme was sent in last Friday week following the submissions, discussions, clarifications and progress we have made. We have widened the scope of the derogation sought. In addition, the committee is probably aware that the Minister for Agriculture and Food recently announced a number of measures to assist farmers to meet the requirements of the regulations.
In conclusion, we have been in direct discussions with the main farming organisations and other stakeholders on this process since December 2001. It has been a four-year process, which has been enhanced by the extent of public consultation that has taken place. The suggestions we received have resulted in revisions along the way. The Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Agriculture and Food are jointly involved in developing the nitrates action programme, the regulations and the derogation. As a working principle, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is more or less leading on the regulations, principally because the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will make the regulations and the Department of Agriculture and Food is mainly leading on the derogation, also supported by Teagasc. Both Departments are very much involved in consultation and consensus in moving forward.
We will be happy to elaborate on any aspect of the regulations or the process in general and to answer any questions. A number of officials are in attendance for that reason. I hope we will be able to cover whatever aspect of the topic members may wish to pursue.
Before I call Deputy Naughten, I wish to announce that Deputy Upton unfortunately had to leave as she had another meeting to attend. She asked me to apologise on her behalf.
I welcome the officials from the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Agriculture and Food. I thank them for taking the time to come in at relatively short notice to give an update on the current position regarding the nitrates directive.
First, I wish to put the matter in context. The big issue at the moment relates to the pig and poultry industries which account for 6% of total nitrogen usage and 10% of total phosphate usage in Irish agriculture. Perhaps in its response the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government can elaborate on the key areas in which it is looking to amend the draft regulations that have been published.
Back in 2002, the Department of Agriculture and Food published a report entitled, Eco-Friendly Farming, which noted that in regard to the rural environment protection scheme, which had then been in place since 1994, we had gone far beyond the minimum level of compliance required under the EU scheme at that time. The Department of Agriculture and Food made its own admission in that regard and acknowledged that there was a high level of enforcement in Ireland. On that basis, the proposals on the nitrates directive far exceed what was set out in the REPS plan and the good farming practice guidelines. The REP scheme and good farming practice rules were based on scientific evidence provided by Teagasc and other agencies. Why are we now going a step further in that regard?
I understand that under the proposals on the regulations a sow and its offspring can now deposit 87 kg of nitrogen instead of 67 kg, as set out under the REP scheme. What is the scientific basis for this increase? The level of nitrogen in organic fertiliser from pigs will increase from 30% to 40% in the next three years. What is the scientific basis for this information? Will there be such a shift in the sow breeding sector that there will be an increase of 10% in a three year period? It is not recognised in the regulations that changes in pig feed developments in the next three years could reduce either nitrogen or phosphorus output. Will Mr. Sadlier elaborate on this? Under the regulations, a nine sow unit is the equivalent of 100 pigs; in other words, a pig farmer must have storage facilities for the equivalent of 100 pigs for six months if he has nine sows. What is the basis for this calculation?
The recommended phosphorus threshold currently rests at a P index of 3 on the basis of REPS plans and good farming practice codes. This is the equivalent of 19 kg of phosphorus per hectare. The new recommendations reduce this level to 9 kg of phosphorus per hectare, a significant reduction to a P index of 2. What impact will this have on existing REPS plans which are drafted on the basis of a P index of 3? Will all REPS plans have to be amended or will there be leeway for farmers participating in the scheme?
Have the officials from the Department of Agriculture and Food been discussing the impact of the change in the phosphorus index on REPS plans? Why has the benchmark P index of 3 which obtained under REPS guidelines and the phosphorus, phosphate and nitrogen guidelines been thrown out the window? It is implied that REPS does not go far enough. Has our thinking been wrong until now?
I thank Mr. Sadlier for his presentation. Deputy Naughten covered some of my questions. We all realise why we are at the point we have reached and that the issue under discussion must be dealt with. We are told farmers in the REP scheme may not be able to use pig slurry. I do not know whether this is true but it is a concern for pig and poultry farmers. There is much confusion and, to tell the truth, I am confused myself. Is pig slurry regarded as a fertiliser or waste? We have been asked this question frequently in recent times. Mr. Sadlier stated the derogation was applied for in November 2004.
Mr. Sadlier
It was applied for in 2004 originally.
I suppose no decision will be taken until we agree on the threshold of 170 kg per hectare. Is that correct?
Mr. Sadlier
The application for a derogation will not even be considered until the regulations are made.
How long will we have to wait before we discover whether our application has been successful?
Mr. Sadlier
We envisage that we will immediately begin our discussions on the derogation and that it will be granted by mid-2006, that is, within six or seven months.
Will the derogation allow for 250 kg per hectare?
Mr. Sadlier
That is what has been sought and we are reasonably optimistic we will get it. Only one member state, Denmark, has been granted a derogation so far. It is allowed 230 kg per hectare. An agreement was made with The Netherlands to grant a derogation allowing 250 kg per hectare but it has not yet been granted formally. Austria has applied for a derogation to allow up to 230 kg per hectare. These countries and Ireland are the only ones in the picture in terms of applications for derogations.
I thank Mr. Sadlier for his presentation and welcome the representatives of both Departments. This is a very serious issue for pig and poultry farmers. While I know the Departments have a job to do and that they are stuck for time, the decisions taken will have a very significant impact on both sectors. When we consider the pressure being exerted on pig and poultry farmers in conjunction with the red tape involved in making progress on sewerage schemes in towns and villages, we realise farmers are at a crossroads. It is not the case that Ireland is not compliant; we have been extremely compliant by EU standards. I am often amazed at how things are done in other countries.
Chicken manure was used a great deal in the production of sugar beet. One should bear in mind that the sugar industry is also experiencing problems. There seems to be great doubt among farmers participating in the REP scheme as to whether they will be permitted to spread both chicken and pig manure. Will the delegates comment on this?
I am sure the delegates have heard frequently that this issue has very serious implications for intensive pig and poultry farmers who are very professional and have invested a lot of money. Many pig farmers have not got land on which to spread slurry and would not be able to meet the cost of increased storage facilities, despite the availability of very good grants. However, spreading on the land is of vital importance. What is the position on those farmers involved in the REP scheme?
I apologise to the departmental officials for having to leave for a few minutes when they were addressing the committee.
A few people were worried about a slight problem concerning the importation of Chinese chicken which should not be available in this country. It is in the North but it is still in the island. That is the problem we face. Farmers must meet the tightest possible regulations but imports are brought in that do not have to meet those regulations.
Derogation was mentioned. How will that relate to pig and poultry farmers, many of whom have limited acreage? Will the derogation allow them to utilise other lands for production? At present, other farmers are queuing to get this valuable manure. Some people see it as waste but others see it as a replacement for expensive imported fertiliser. It is a major worry in my constituency, where there is a large pig producing area. The Cavan part of the constituency has many pig producers and the Monaghan part has many poultry farmers, and they face the same difficulties. In the past they were able to export the product for the production of maize. How will those regulations be addressed? Will it be done in a sympathetic way?
Deputy Wilkinson mentioned how councils now deal with their own sewerage issues. Today my Oireachtas colleagues from Monaghan and I met the Minister about the situation in Castleblayney, where 800 houses were added but no effort was made to provide increased sewerage. Last summer the lake there was poisonous and the water was being piped to Dundalk for domestic use. We have one regulation for one group and another for the other. There is an onus on the delegation to get this right or beef, pig and poultry farmers will be following the beet farmers out of business.
The last page of the documentation mentions the important issue of increased aid for those who can provide storage, but storage on its own will not solve the pig and poultry problem. There must be agreement that it can be spread on the thousands of acres of land capable of taking it providing the regulations are reasonable. I am not asking the Department to do something, I am begging on behalf of the farmers I have met in Cavan and Monaghan who are now beginning to realise that even the REPS will not be sufficient to combat the danger. The implications are dire.
We got a commitment from the Minister for Agriculture and Food that grant aid for farm buildings will be available at the higher level from 1 January. How are the negotiations proceeding in Brussels on that topic? Will those between zero and 20 livestock units be included in the grant aid? That is a vital area for small farmers who are in part-time work or in receipt of social welfare. If they do not get aid at a significant level, they will go out of business altogether. Will that be in place on 1 January so people will be able to plan?
I cannot overemphasise that pig farmers are well organised and at the top levels of the farming structure. They know what food they are providing for their animals and they claim that by re-organising the feeding system to their pigs, they can minimise the nitrogen and phosphate in the manure. The present proposal does not take account of that fact. They believe they can work under licence, as they must do for the EPA, and produce pig manure at certain nitrogen levels. If that was taken into account half the acreage would be needed for the manure they must spread. It is scientific but that is how they are doing their business and the Government should allow that to be used to the fullest possible extent. I do not have the technical details with me but the farmers explained in great detail to the committee how it would change the situation if they were allowed to use the means at their disposal.
I welcome the delegation to the committee. There is a problem down the line with the disposal of pig and chicken slurry. We should remember that pigs only produce 2% of the nitrogen used in this country and, if that is the case, the importation of chemical nitrogen should be examined. Pig farmers have other people to take the slurry but that practice will be prohibited. If that happens, pig production in this country is finished.
The least levels of bureaucracy should be used to address these problems. Deputy Wilkinson spoke about the use of pig slurry on REPS farms and planners are being encouraged to go down this line but no directive has been given to them by any Department as to what they can do. Instructions should be issued as soon as possible. This cannot be put on the long finger, immediate action must be taken.
I welcome the officials to the meeting. Mr. Sadlier said in his address that he wants the regulations implemented by 9 December and that there are a number of areas where the regulations might be amended. What does that mean? He said there would be an opportunity to widen the scope of the derogation he sought. He said that, all going well, the derogation would be in place by June or July of 2006. What will happen between 9 December and July 2006, especially if all does not go well? Pig producers cannot afford to wait longer if everything does not go well. The severe directives the Department is imposing will put them out of business.
They will follow the sugar beet farmers and the cereal producers who lost their malting barley contracts. It is disconcerting to speak of this when farmers hope to receive cheques today and tomorrow yet the policy seems to be to pay them to do nothing. A farmer's natural ability and instinct is to produce food and, in Ireland, to produce top quality food yet now everything seems to be directed at putting them out of business. It is tragic that in a world where starvation is a problem people who are able to produce food are not allowed to do so.
Are there proposals to amend some of the specifications of REPS 3, particularly, for example, to allow participants bring it up to 170 kg with pig slurry, instead of chemical fertilisers? Pig slurry is cheaper to produce and would be better than the imposition of chemical fertiliser only. The draft regulations on cross-compliance state that farmers in that category who import slurry from neighbouring pig producers are subject to additional and extra inspections. Are there plans to change that because it makes no sense to most farmers or the ordinary individual?
The importance of this draft is the threat it poses to pig producers, and the general farmer. Aspects of it affect storage in the beef and dairy sectors too. If one forces implementation of regulations by 9 December why has it taken so long to give the farming community the grants they need to provide those extra facilities? They must wait for the grants but the regulations will be passed first.
I apologise to the visitors for my late arrival. I beg their pardon if my questions repeat some of those already asked. I welcome the officials from both Departments. In north Tipperary, there a few pig producers, who are very productive and effective. They share the concerns of other pig farmers around the country. The serious REPS question has been asked. People will be working illegally if the recommendations are to be implemented. I look forward to the response from the Departments' officials to that question.
I understand there are 22,000 pigs in Denmark in an area the size of Munster and the Danish farmers got what they wanted in regard to the regulations. They have an impressive pig production industry. What is their situation compared to the bleak one facing us in Ireland?
I met a group of pig producers from my constituency here two weeks ago before they met the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith. They are very worried about the present situation. That is why I advised them to hold a briefing session for all Members of the Oireachtas, which they did last week. Everyone who attended understood the concerns of the ordinary producers across the country. There are not many pig or poultry producers in my area but my neighbouring constituency, Cavan, is the home of pig production, while Monaghan is the home of poultry production.
The producers from my area were concerned because for years they could get rid of their slurry in County Meath. They are worried now that a restriction on the spread of slurry on land will have a serious effect on production.
I have seen the benefit of slurry coming from Cavan into Meath. When the weather did not permit spreading it on grassland it was ploughed into tillage land. It was a significant boost to the farmers and cut down their costs. These people are the backbone of the local economy in many areas, particularly in that part of Cavan along the Meath border that I know so well. Every effort should be made to ensure those people do not go out of business.
Mr. Sadlier
I will deal with as many topics as I can, probably the agricultural ones. My colleagues will deal with the REPS, grant aid from the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the nutrient content of fertiliser, and possibly farming conditions in Denmark, although I will probably refer briefly to these issues.
The most fundamental question concerned the attitude to livestock manure generally as a fertiliser. I confirm that the policy of our Department, and the law, unequivocally recognises livestock manure as a fertiliser. The draft regulations do not refer to waste but introduce arrangements, requirements and standards for the use of livestock manure in farming as a fertiliser. The two purposes of the nitrates directive are to protect water against pollution from agricultural activities, and improve the management of livestock manure and other fertilisers.
Large quantities of livestock manure are produced in Ireland every year. The only feasible method, and the most appropriate way to deal with that quantity is to apply it to land as a fertiliser to enhance the soil and provide the nutrient requirement for crops. There are no quibbles on that point. The purpose and effect of the nitrates directive and regulations is to ensure this is done in environmentally acceptable ways and in a way that promotes the better management of nutrients.
The Minister for Agriculture and Food issued a press statement in recent days expressing the view that the concerns expressed by pig farmers are exaggerated. We agree with that view. Pig farming is different from dairy farming. The essential difference is that the majority of commercial pig farmers do not have land available on which to spread pig manure. A dairy farmer will usually have enough land under his or her control to spread livestock manure. A pig farmer is dependent on someone else taking the livestock manure off his or her property and managing it.
The European Commission took a firm line on this. Due to the higher risk that a pig farmer may not be able to gain access at the right time to spread lands, the Commission decided a six month storage requirement is appropriate and the minimum necessary for commercial pig farming. These requirements need to be put in place by the end of 2006.
There are adequate spread-lands available for pig manure. However, there are obstacles to this. The farmer receiving pig manure wants the right amount of nutrient to manage his crops. However, there has been a certain lack of consistency in the nutrient quality of pig manure. The farmer may be told the nutrient content is X or Y of nitrogen or phosphorous. There is scope for improvement in pig manure quality. Pig farmers must convince other farmers that they are making available a quality product of a certain standard that is not over-diluted or over-concentrated.
Under the new regime, all farmers will be required to better manage the nutrients of manure and to avoid spreading excess quantities of fertiliser on lands. Spreading excess quantities is simply a wasteful use of resources. It is expensive and damages the environment in several different ways. A basic feature of the regulations is to improve nutrient management. Farmers are, therefore, asked to match their crop requirement with the fertiliser they apply to lands. This means that the spreading of pig, and other, manures on lands is a fertiliser operation, not simply a dumping operation.
We are confident there are enough lands available for the spreading of pig manure. However, the transition will require some extra effort. Pig farmers will need to operate to more consistent standards and convince their colleague farmers the product they are offering is reliable and can be accepted with confidence.
There are some doubts among farmers that taking in pig manure, particularly under the single farm payment scheme, may expose them to a higher risk of penalties. This is not the case. As was recently indicated by the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the Department will take a positive offensive to assist in getting over these concepts. The Department will promote the use of pig manure by farmers and REPS officials will encourage their clients to accept pig manure.
Concerns were raised that the definition of soiled water was too restrictive; particularly the biochemical oxygen demand is set at 2000 milligrams per litre. We hope the Commission will relax this figure. In some cases, the regulations specify minimum storage requirements. However, in the case of extensive farms with relatively low stocking densities, for out-wintering purposes the storage requirement is reduced. We will try to expand the scope of this. It was claimed the extent of buffer zones was too severe, in, for example, the distances required between land-spread and water courses, springs and wells. We will explore a reduction in this which would increase the amount of land available for spreading.
There is scope for minor revisions to the draft regulations on the nutrient content of pig manure. Many pig farmers complained the regulations would set a standard nutrient content for manure, irrespective of what the actual content was. This would operate against good farming practice and better management. We will introduce a mechanism whereby the actual content of pig manure will be reflected if it is sampled properly. However, we are not certain how the Commission will view these proposed revisions.
Another major feature of comments from farmers, particularly in the south west, was the duration of the closed period, when the spreading of fertiliser is prohibited. Many farmers in the south west felt it was unjustified and a reduced prohibitive period would be more appropriate in their case. We will raise this with the Commission.
Ireland is in the happy position of having put in place the major sewage treatment plants necessary to deal with major urban centres and sensitive areas, mainly around the coast. The bigger task on hand is to upgrade a large number of small treatment plants inland. The impact of livestock manure, particularly pig manure, is hugely different to the impact of human waste and sewage. For example, the regulations define soiled water as having a BOD of not more than 2000 milligrams per litre. The legal limit for BOD from the discharge from a sewage treatment plant to water is 25 millgrams per litre, while in practice it would be nearer 20 milligrams. The limit specified here is for soiled water from a farm. Soiled water is not a harmless substance as the name might suggest, as it has a very high pollution impact and it arises in very large quantities. The figure of 2000 milligrams compares with 20 milligrams in discharges from sewage treatment plants to water, or if one wants to compare it with raw untreated human sewage, the BOD of that would be around 200 milligrams, so the soiled water level is ten times that figure.
Would soiled water be put straight into a water course?
Mr. Sadlier
No. It would be applied to land.
Mr. Sadlier is contradicting himself if he is saying that the outfall from sewage treatment plants is 20 milligrams and is going straight into a water course. He is not comparing like with like. Soiled water is not being put straight into a water course from farmyards. It is receiving treatment through land spread. Mr. Sadlier is giving a definition of soiled water but that has to be land spread.
Mr. Sadlier
That is correct but it may turn out to be the case that one of the biggest features which requires management on farms is soiled water. In the debate up to now we have dealt with many major topics but this may turn out to be the major issue.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Mr. Sadlier
Unfortunately it would appear that large quantities of soiled water make their way rapidly, within a number of hours, straight into water. Readings are taken in water courses. In many cases water is tested every month or perhaps six months, but in a number of researches it was decided to take readings every ten minutes, to see exactly what was happening, apart from variations from month to month, to see if there were something more. One can find a specific pattern emerging over a 24-hour period where by 10 a.m. the pollution level of a stream has gone from a certain low level, shoots up, stays up, with a small dip during the day again, goes up again later in the day and then drops back towards night. There appears to be a clear pattern whereby soiled water makes its way very rapidly and directly into waterways.
There is validity in making the comparisons. Soiled water and livestock manure have a very high pollution impact. The Deputy may have often heard the comparison made that as a rough rule of thumb, the pollution potential in terms of BOD of the livestock animal population of the country is equivalent to a human population of roughly 65 million or 70 million people in terms of the impact on waters. Further progress is necessary with regard to sewage treatment plants and septic tanks, but there is no doubt that the really big issue which needs to be addressed is farming. These regulations are intended to address that issue but to do so in a way which can be accommodated by the farming community as best it can.
We are under pressure from all sides. Our target is for the Minister to have the regulations made early next month — that is his wish — so that the derogation can be presented to the nitrates committee on 12 December. The regulations will come into operation on 1 January but different requirements are to be phased in. For example, a three-year period is allowed for dairy farms and other farms to provide the storage facilities. Several requirements of the regulations will be phased in over several years. The pressure is on us, arising from the court judgment already registered against us. We are facing the real threat of daily fines and possibly a substantial lump sum fine. There is also the link between compliance with European Union legislation and the funding by the European Union of all the agricultural financial support schemes. There is great pressure in that area. We must respond and get the arrangements in place very quickly.
It is not as if we have pulled rabbits out of a hat. We have been in direct discussions face to face with all the farming organisations for four years. My agricultural colleagues may add to the debate now.
Mr. Michael O’Donovan
Mr. Sadlier has covered the area comprehensively but I will add what I can. Clearly the pig and poultry sectors have recently become the focus of attention. As Mr. Sadlier says, we have been talking to the farming organisations for some four years about the nitrates directive and its implementation. The pig and poultry sectors were not foremost on the agenda until comparatively recently. Discussions tended to focus on other matters.
Deputy Naughten and some of the other speakers made the point that the REPS specifications as they stand would be less rigorous in some respects than the nitrates regulations. Those regulations, once brought into play by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, will be the law. REPS must follow the law and there will have to be an amendment to the specifications to take account of that. Clearly we must be reasonable and practicable. We will not insist that every REPS farmer with an existing contract has to amend his or her undertakings overnight.
Apart from pig farmers, who must be compliant by the end of the first year, the nitrates regulations will allow a couple of years for farmers generally to become fully compliant. We would expect REPS farmers to amend their activities if they have to — in many cases they will not need to — probably on the anniversary of their REPS undertaking. REPS is a five-year contract with payment made once a year, and the anniversary is probably the time when we would expect REPS farmers to adapt. We will be realistic about it, but REPS will have to follow the law.
REPS farmers can already take pig slurry and poultry manure. It is simply a matter of notifying the Department of Agriculture and Food that they are doing so, and having their REPS plan reflect that, and following whatever particular additional undertakings the REPS planner suggests they should follow.
We will encourage REPS farmers to be open-minded and receptive about taking in pig manure in particular. Deputy Naughten asked if we had already sent out that message to REPS planners. We have not, but will do so as soon as we can.
We have asked Teagasc for help in encouraging farmers in general to consider taking in pig manure and poultry litter as a substitute for chemical fertiliser. When the regulations are made by the Minister and published, we in the Department of Agriculture and Food will produce a set of guidelines to be sent to every farmer, which essentially will be designed to translate what the regulations say into concrete practicalities for farmers. We will use the guidelines as an opportunity to explain to farmers the advantages of taking in pig and poultry manure and reassuring them that they are not bringing extra problems on themselves. Someone referred to the single payments scheme and cross-compliance and the fact that farmers taking in pig manure would face some extra checks and controls under the single payment scheme. That is not the case. The draft forms and checklists used by spreaders in conduct and cross-compliance inspections were given to the farming organisations following the consultation process. They appeared to suggest that there would be an extra couple of checks for farmers taking in pig manure. If that gave the impression that those farmers had to jump through a few extra hoops, it was unintentional. We will redraft the forms to reflect that. We will have the regulations and we will have a tighter regime controlling the use of farm waste and organic matter, but it is our intention to put as few difficulties as possible in the way of farmers taking in pig and poultry manure.
The amendments to the farm waste management scheme are with the Commission for approval. There were discussions with the Commission this week and further progress was made. As things stand, we expect everything to be on course so that they can be introduced at the same time as the nitrates regulations come into effect. Deputy Crawford asked whether the farm waste management scheme would now cater for the lower income farmers which are those below 20 income units. We are certainly trying to achieve that. Under the existing EU regulations, there is a problem with granting investment aid for what is called non-viable farmers. The Minister has made a strong case to have that amended and we are reasonably hopeful that we can achieve something on it. Ultimately, as in so many things, the Commission has the final say.
Pig producers and poultry producers will face some transitional difficulties. They will have to adapt to a new situation and some of them may find it hard. The farm bodies may have a role in encouraging their members to think about how they can help these other farmers. They could be receptive to the notion of taking in some of the organic material that they produce.
I raised the issue of derogation. Would that cover pig farmers who do not have land? We are being told that this thing will be dealt with sympathetically by officialdom. In my own constituency we have one person that would not know what sympathetic means. We will have to have someone who is more deft than that. There will be a transitional period which will be difficult. I would hate to think that some good farmer would be nailed next June because he had not met the full criteria. We want some clear indications on that because it will not be possible, with planning problems and other issues, to have things done by exact dates. Some common sense will have to be in place to do that. I am dealing with some cases that have been caused by one official and I make no apology for saying that. One case dealt with whether a lady had a right to have a child and still be involved in farming. It would not happen in any other organisation. What farmers are being put through is unreal.
As a farmer with a long-term involvement in farming organisations, I want to make sure that as many farmers as possible remain viable. We will not bring up scare stories, but press releases stating that there is nothing to worry about will not solve the problem.
I have a number of questions, but I would like the officials to respond to my earlier questions first. Is is the case that, in line with the Department's own report, the REPS in Ireland went far beyond what was required under EU law? Regarding REPS and good farming practice, is it not the case that scientific evidence was used to lay down the rules? What is the scientific basis for a sow and its offspring depositing 97 kg of nitrogen compared with 87 kg of nitrogen up until now? Why is there an increase in the nitrogen availability from 30% to 40% over the next three years? Why is no recognition being given for changes in feed developments over that period and the impact that would have on nitrates or phosphates? Why are nine sows being considered equivalent to 100 pigs? Why are pig farmers being requested to have six months storage for 100 pigs when they have nine sows or its equivalent? Why is the P index being changed from three to two? REPS recommends three, while Teagasc traditionally recommends three, but it is now being changed to two. Where is the scientific basis for that?
I also have a couple of supplementary questions. Under the REPS plans, farmers have to deal with organic fertilizer in a different manner to inorganic fertilizer. The regulations proposed will treat other farmers the same way, but not REPS farmers. Is it the intention of the Department to change that rule based on the anniversary of REPS plans? Mr. O'Donovan stated that there will not be any additional inspections for farmers compared with inorganic fertilizer. That is a positive development and I would like Mr. O'Donovan to clarify it. My understanding is that pig and poultry farmers must be compliant on slurry spreading of lands by January or February 2006. Mr. O'Donovan acknowledged that there is a transitional problem for pig farmers, but this timetable does not leave them with much time to implement those changes and to try to find alternative outlets for slurry. The averages for nitrogen and phosphorous are considerably lower than the book value in the directive. Why is that the case? There seems to be a major discrepancy between what we know as good farming practice and scientific evidence to what appears in the nitrates directive and the regulations on that.
Mr. Sadlier made the point that there are adequate lands available for spreading pig slurry. From a survey carried out in the midlands of ten pig farmers, the loss of lands available for pig slurry ranged from 27% to 53%. We all accept that there is plenty of land available in the country as a whole. However, I am referring to existing customers of pig farmers who traditionally got slurry.
Can Mr. Sadlier elaborate on the issue regarding soiled water? I agree with him as I think it is the critical issue. It is probably the hidden issue that has not been debated to date. My understanding is that if a farmer has a cattle crush out on the land and it was not concreted, then that will have to be set in concrete due to the possibility of seepage. If there is muck on concrete, it must be cleared away so that rain water is not soiled, which would cause major management problems in many yards. The witnesses were correct to state that this issue will be a challenge but it is one that has been ignored to date. Will they elaborate on this point?
I referred to pig farm practice in Denmark, which seems to be well managed. Danish farms are extremely productive despite the small areas of land involved. Will one or both Departments comment on that point?
Mr. O’Donovan
My colleague, Mr. Quinlivan, is better qualified to discuss the scientific elements. To deal with the question on the eco-friendly farming report, the report stated that REPS had gone beyond the minimum standards and requirements at European level. REPS, by definition, means that farmers have to go beyond normal good farming practice. The report also meant to convey that Ireland has one of the most comprehensive agri-environment schemes in the EU. Every member state operates the scheme differently but ours is the most comprehensive in that Ireland is the only state to introduce a set of whole-farm undertakings.
The fundamental specifications of REPS, in particular on nutrient management, date from 1994. The voluntary code of good agricultural practice on nitrates dates from 1996. The first scientific confirmation that there was a water quality issue related to agriculture came around 2000 or 2001. Therefore, it is fair to state that the scientific realities have evolved in the ten years since REPS was first drawn up and the eight or nine years since the nitrates code was agreed with the farming organisations.
On the question of the single payment scheme, I did not mean to convey that there would not be additional inspections. The point I wanted to get across was that for any farm selected for inspection, the inspector will be issued with a checklist and a series of elements to examine. The draft given to the farming organisations seemed to suggest that if the farmer in question was taking in, for example, pig manure, the inspector had a few extra "yes", "no", or "problem" boxes to tick, thereby increasing the risk of non-compliance and a penalty. We are re-examining the forms with a view to rephrasing them, to make it clear that the farmer taking in pig slurry is not subject to extra hoops or hurdles than another farmer undergoing a single payment inspection.
What does Mr. O'Donovan mean by extra hoops and hurdles, additional inspections and boxes to tick?
Mr. O’Donovan
Under the single payment scheme we are required to select a 1% sample of farmers. That selection is partly random and partly based on risk analysis. At present, a farmer accepting pig manure from another farmer will be no more likely to be selected on the basis of risk analysis than any other category of farmer.
That was not the question I asked. Will other boxes have to be ticked in regard to a farmer who is taking in pig slurry, for example?
Mr. O’Donovan
Not as a result of the single payment scheme. If he is taking it from a pig producer who has an IPPC licence, he will probably need to have a nutrient management plan. However, that is an aspect of the EPA controls rather than having anything to do with the single payment. The Department of Agriculture and Food, in operating the single payment scheme, will not impose additional restrictions on farmers.
In other words, a farmer taking in pig slurry will have to produce a nutrient plan.
Mr. O’Donovan
In many cases, a farmer taking in pig slurry will take it from a farmer who has an IPPC licence. That situation obviously involves controls on the farmer taking in the slurry as well as the pig farmer producing it.
So there are extra rules and regulations over and above those applying to the use of organic fertiliser.
Mr. O’Donovan
They already exist in the framework of the IPPC licensing of the larger pig producers.
What of smaller pig producers?
Mr. Tom Quinlivan
There would not be any requirement for nutrient management plans or anything like that for smaller producers.
I intend to cover some of the detailed points raised. In drawing up the regulations and tables, the Department reviewed the figures in the REPS documentation and the nitrates code. One of the statistics reviewed was that relating to excretion rates — the Deputy referred to such rates for sows in particular. There were some changes to the rates for pigs and poultry but the rates for cattle, when reviewed, did not warrant change.
The change in regard to nitrogen occurred as a reflection of the changed practices on farms. The 67 kg figure for nitrogen was in place for some time. However, when we considered present management practices, it was found that a greater number of piglets per sow are being produced and pigs are being taken to heavier weights. Using the present feeding regimes for our calculations — we used a five-stage feeding regime in the calculations — as well as the off-take in terms of meat from pigs and milk from dairy cows, we arrived at a higher figure for nitrogen. However, the committee's attention is drawn to the fact that the level of phosphorous was reduced from 22 kg to 17 kg, which is a significant statistic.
Therefore, while nitrogen increases, phosphorous decreases.
Mr. Quinlivan
No, we reduced the figure in the tables. It is currently 22 kg in the REPS documentation but is to be reduced to 17 kg. That is more significant than the increase in the nitrogen. In addition, the calculations on the nutrient content of manure show a significant reduction in the standard value for phosphorous content. In the REPS documentation it is 1.4 kg, in the present draft of the regulation it is 1 kg and we hope it will decrease to 0.8 kg, if this is approved by the Commission. We have re-examined the calculations and believe there is justification for a reduction to 0.8 kg for the standard content of pig manure. That is good news for the pig farmer because he or she will be able to dispose of more manure per given area of ground, which is significant.
On the efficiency figures for nitrogen, Teagasc tells us that pig manure applied in the spring has a nitrogen efficiency of approximately 50% whereas in summer its efficiency is approximately 10%, giving an average efficiency of approximately 30%. These were the figures we presented to the Commission whereas other member states provided much higher figures. There was no way we would be allowed to have just 30% efficiency so we intend to increase this efficiency over time. For pig and poultry manure, we are starting at a figure of 35% and will increase that to 45%, which was the minimum figure the Commission would accept with regard to efficiency. While it may be difficult in practice to achieve these figures, efficiency levels will improve at farm level as a consequence of new spreading technologies, trailing shoe applications and so on.
The Deputy is correct that the numbers of pigs to be catered for in the context of reduced storage will be small. However, the number of farms that will be accommodated is significant. While there are fewer than 500 commercial pig farms, there are some 1,200 farms with pigs, many of them containing only a small number.
In regard to indexes 2 and 3, the directive requires farmers to use fertiliser only in accordance with product requirements. The approach must involve a balance between what one applies and what one takes off in terms of product. All the tables and regulations are based on that approach rather than on a facility for disposing of pig slurry. They are based on what the crop, including grass, requires.
In regard to phosphorous, a farmer could in the past choose to operate in either index 2 or 3 for phosphorous. The criteria for choosing were very much in the farmer's domain. If one wanted early grass, one would be justified in bringing the soil status to index 3. The question is how we will control these issues. There must be clarity in legislation. The principle, in all the tables, is the balance between the fertiliser applied and what is taken off in the crop. The provisions are there to allow farmers to control these matters.
Is a national average taken?
Mr. Quinlivan
Yes.
Even though the country is zoned in different areas?
Mr. Quinlivan
It has been the case for many years that national averages are taken. That is the approach the Commission asked us to take.
Practically everything in the table reflects what is in the Teagasc recommendations. As I said, some elements were introduced to bring clarity and allow for enforcement. There were some amendments but they were generally minor and reflect the Teagasc recommendations.
Mr. Sadlier might address my question on timescales. He made the point that there are transitional difficulties in regard to pig and poultry farmers. I asked about the timescale for the implementation of the provisions in regard to land spreading.
Mr. Sadlier
The regulations state that, as a general rule, if a farmer has the specified storage capacity, the close period for spreading comes into operation immediately. If a farmer has enough storage capacity to hold the slurry over the prohibited period, whether three, four months or whatever, he or she should immediately comply with the close period. In other words, no spraying is permitted in that period.
In many cases, however, farmers do not immediately have the specified storage capacity on their farms. The regulations state that dairy farmers, for example, are allowed up to three years to put the storage capacity in place. Once that is done, the close period applies. The close period ranges, depending on the type of farm and the fertiliser used, from some time in September up to some time in January.
There is an immediate requirement, however, that the spreading of organic manure is prohibited during the months of November and December. There is extreme pressure on Ireland from the European Commission to get these regulations in place and secure a change of practice quickly. For the purposes of making an immediate impact, one of the Commission requirements was that, as a minimum, a two-month prohibition should operate immediately. This prohibition is not entirely new. I understand it has been included in the good farming practice guidelines for many years.
Mr. Sadlier gave the example of a three-year lead-in time for dairy farmers. What is the lead-in time for pigs and poultry?
Mr. Sadlier
It is one year, with effect from 31 December 2006. By the end of 2006, the requirement is for six months' storage to be in place. Under the IPPC system, the six-month requirement applies for the 100 or 120 pig farmers licensed by the EPA. However, I believe almost all commercial farmers meet this requirement.
The P index, however, in terms of the increase from 67 kg to 87 kg of nitrogen, kicks in immediately.
Mr. Sadlier
Yes, the provisions in respect of the calculation of the amount of nitrogen or phosphorous one is putting on the land apply immediately. As Mr. Quinlivan said, this works to the advantage of farmers.
Mr. Pat Duggan
There are two aspects to this issue. One is that the phosphorus, the critical element, is reduced. That is what will restrict the amount of manure that may go on land. Second, the inclusion of the provision whereby the supplier of the manure can provide certified analysis certifying the nutrient content of the manure will more than compensate for any other issues. The 87 kg provision is not a major issue from the point of view of the pig farmer who wants to dispose of manure.
The provision regarding analysis is subject to approval by the EU Commission.
Mr. Duggan
Yes, it is one of the proposals put forward for approval by the Commission. We are reasonably confident we will get that approval. It is a sensible proposal.
Everyone accepts that pig farmers have difficulties with the transitional arrangements to get everything up and running. However, we are saying to them that once the open period arrives, whether in February or some other date, they must have the additional lands for the spreading of slurry. This gives them some two months to get everything in order. Does Mr. Duggan believe this is adequate to allow pig farmers to get the additional lands required? As I pointed out, a survey of ten pig farmers in the midlands showed that up to 53% of lands will not be available for the open period of 2006.
Mr. Duggan
It is true that there will be temporary short-term difficulties and adjustments to be made. It would be incorrect to say this is not the case. Ultimately, the pig farmers themselves, along with the farming industry and whatever support is available must build confidence in pig manure. They must ensure that the grassland farmers who will take the manure and dispose of it for them do not lose confidence in that product. The pig industry itself, supported by the Department of Agriculture and Food, Teagasc, the IFA and others, have a task to perform to make that happen.
However, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is not prepared to give them any leeway to facilitate that.
Mr. Duggan
No request has come from the pig farmers. This issue has arisen within the last week. During the last month of consultations, we have received no written submissions from pig farmers. Discussions on this draft regulation have been ongoing for the past four years and it has been in the public domain. There has been no contact from the pig industry on this issue.
I do not dispute that. However, everyone here accepts that pig farmers have a difficulty. In that context, would it not be prudent for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to propose, as part of its discussions with the Commission in the next few weeks, that a lead-in time for pig farmers be allowed? That way, the farmers will be able to get their houses in order, which would be better than simply telling them that they must have secured the required lands from spring 2006 onwards.
In some cases, up to 50% of a farmer's own lands will not be available from next spring. Water quality will not be protected if tanks full of pig slurry are leaking, due to a lack of capacity. While that might be an extreme situation, a pig farmer who can no longer make use of 53% of his or her lands will be obliged to attempt to secure a significant amount of land elsewhere. Existing issues with single farm payments and integrated pollution control, IPC, licences will make it difficult for them to get additional farmers. Everyone must work together to try to encourage farmers to take action. Why not provide them with a window of opportunity to facilitate this process?
Mr. Sadlier
I am not sure what was the basis for the calculation which suggested that 27% to 53% of the currently available lands will be lost. It was possibly based on the current text of the regulations. However, as I noted, one revision that we seek from the European Commission concerns a reduction in buffer zones. In certain cases, depending on several factors, such as farm layout and the type of land involved, buffer zones will have a major impact on farms. For example, at present, a standard feature protecting public sources of drinking water requires that land spreading should not take place within 250 m, and there is probably scope to reduce that restriction. We do not wish to create any risks or dangers to drinking water sources. Hence, for example, where one has a borehole, one must ensure that its surface is adequately protected and safe from contamination. However, there is scope to reduce the 250 m restriction. The area of land excluded from land spreading by keeping 250 m from a single borehole is quite large. One measures the area of the circle using the formula pi r2. In this case, a radius of 250 m gives a total affected area of almost 20 hectares, which is quite significant on a single farm. Hence, the reduction of that single feature alone could have a dramatic impact on many of the farms mentioned by the Deputy.
I will return to the question I asked at the outset and which I have already asked twice. It pertains to a possible derogation for poultry farmers. Although this issue has been around since 1992, I am more scared now than ever before. From the time this proposal was first drafted, I have used every possible opportunity afforded to me by my involvement in Dáil Éireann and elsewhere to raise the issue of how it would affect pig and poultry farmers. I put my own political life at risk and almost lost out because of my involvement in a biomass plant in County Monaghan, in an effort to deal with poultry and mushroom litter there. Nothing has happened.
While there has been much discussion today in respect of the pig industry, the poultry sector also faces extremely serious problems. While the witnesses' statement noted that the pig industry may benefit from grants for holding areas, many poultry farmers depend completely on others to take away their waste. As soon as a batch of poultry is shipped, the waste is sent somewhere else. This is a major issue. I am extremely worried that some degree of leeway and common sense will not be allowed. If not, given the feedback I have received from genuine, committed poultry and pig farmers, it is clear they do not know where they will go. These are simple facts. Such farmers have examined the regulation and while the manner in which information has been disseminated may be responsible, as my colleague Deputy Naughten has noted, some people who used to take pig slurry and poultry litter are no longer prepared to do so. Others have stated that whenever the regulation is implemented, they will no longer be able to take the waste. What will happen then? It will take some time to find others who will take or use it. Will we see breakdowns and severe penalties in the meantime?
Can the witnesses make any comparative comments in respect of practices in Denmark?
Mr. Duggan
The pig industries in Denmark and the Netherlands have been subject to extremely stringent controls for many years. They have extremely strict requirements pertaining to record-keeping and fertilisation plans. However, the Danish and Dutch pig industries have survived and thrived in those circumstances. It comes down to good management by the industry in response to the issue. The pig industry in Ireland must also do this. The purpose of the regulation is to address existing problems in respect of the disposal of pig manure and poultry manure.
It has been mentioned that a number of pig farms have been obliged to increase the amount of lands required for manure disposal. The Deputy provided an example from the midlands. This is simply because the new fertilisation standards are a balance between the nutrient input to those lands and the crop needs of those lands. If there is now a need to increase the amount of lands, that is simply because previously, too much manure was put on them. They became saturated with phosphorous, giving rise to water pollution, which is another issue we must face. Hence, we must change management and amend practices where they are wrong.
Are we are not prepared to recognise that a lead-in time to do so is required?
Mr. Duggan
A lead-in time is required. Deputy Naughten is correct and an issue possibly arises that must be pondered and responded to. It is unfortunate that neither the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government nor the Department of Agriculture and Food have been presented with the results the pig farmers provided to this committee. It is unfortunate that the pig industry did not present this information to us or raise these facts during the consultation period on these draft regulations held over the past six weeks or during discussions held over the past four years. It is unfortunate that we were forced to come before this committee to learn about these issues.
It is unacceptable that officials from both Departments were forced to come before this committee to learn about these issues. There is a very small window of opportunity but is there any mechanism within it that would allow us to address this issue because it is central to this debate? We can tease out matters relating to figures, which were provided by Mr. Quinlivan, but these farmers need a lead-in time. Both Departments accept that there is a lead-in time involved. Can anything be done at this late stage to ensure that these farmers are made compliant and to provide them with a window of opportunity?
Mr. Sadlier
We have concentrated on the subject of pig farmers today but activity relating to virtually all farmers is needed as a result of these regulations. There have been a considerable number of discussions and matters have shifted. Nobody is completely certain about what the regulations will contain. The debate will finish on the day the regulations are signed by the Minister and everyone will know where they stand. All of our activities will then be directed towards implementing the regulations.
I am not convinced that it will be an insuperable problem for pig farmers to gain access to spread lands. Nobody, including the European Commission and the two Departments involved, is addressing the issue in a bloody-minded fashion. We are aware that we entered a process of change from the beginning and that reasonable allowances must be made for people to adapt to change. However, change must be implemented. The drive by the Department of Agriculture and Food, Teagasc and people administering the REPS scheme to encourage their clients to promote the availability of spread lands has already been mentioned. I expect this to have an impact. As Mr. Quinlivan noted, the reduction in the specified phosphorous content of pig manure will be an easement. The level of phosphorous in pig manure has been reduced by approximately 25% so it will be particularly helpful in maximising the amount of spread lands available.
Is the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government prepared to deal flexibly with this issue until the transitional period is over?
Mr. Sadlier
There will be a transitional period of at least 12 months.
There is a difference between the treatment of inorganic and organic fertilisers in the REPS scheme. Will both types of fertilisers be treated in the same fashion, as happens with other farmers, after the REPS plans are reviewed?
Is my interpretation of the question of water run-off correct? I previously mentioned cattle crushes and houses with clay floors. Must the floors of these buildings be concreted?
Mr. Sadlier
The matter in question is the management of water on farms, which is a key starting point. The regulations require farmers to ensure that clean water — rain water — is diverted. This amounts to nothing more than keeping one's drainpipes in proper order and minimising the amount of rain water that falls into a farmyard and becomes soiled. The diversion of clean water is extremely important and would in itself improve considerably the management of farmyards.
The regulations require that soiled water is collected and not allowed to seep into the nearest drain to pollute streams, lakes or rivers. A new provision in the regulations stipulates that a storage tank which can hold at least ten days' worth of soiled water must be provided. There is no specific requirement for separate storage of soiled water at the moment and in the vast majority of such cases, this water simply goes into the slurry tank, which fills up quickly. A slurry tank which was intended to cater for two or three months' worth of water can fill up in a few weeks. The farmer must then skim off the liquid top of the slurry and spread it on the land. In such cases, the farmer is spreading liquid slurry, rather than soiled water. The regulations permit the spreading of soiled water throughout the year, subject to weather conditions and matters such as waterlogging. However, the regulations stipulate that such soiled water must be spread in an even and uniform manner. Currently, it is either taken off the top of the slurry tank or automatically discharges itself into the same spot in a field even if it is collected and dealt with separately. This leads to a considerable amount of water going into one spot in a field to be driven down to ground-water by its sheer volume. Minimising and collecting soiled water and spreading it evenly throughout the farm could be the key to solving one of the largest sources of pollution from farming.
Could I receive an answer to my question about REPS?
Mr. O’Donovan
It is the kind of question I would normally ask Mr. Quinlivan to answer but we do not understand the question in its entirety.
At the moment, REPS farmers must fill out two separate forms relating to the spreading of organic and inorganic fertilisers. Under the nitrates action programme, a farmer outside the REPS scheme fills out one form for both organic and inorganic fertilisers. Will this be applied to REPS farmers and will it take place on the anniversary of the plans?
Mr. O’Donovan
We will certainly examine it. The current REPS scheme will only run for another 13 months. We have just launched our consultation process on the next REPS scheme, which we hope will commence in January 2007, so we will have a new set of specifications for this scheme.
The phosphates are being changed very quickly but the simplifying of matters appears to be put on the long finger.
Mr. O’Donovan
We will examine the matter in the interim but it will only relate to the coming 12 months.
On behalf of the committee, I thank the officials from both Departments for coming here today and contributing to a very informative debate. They have appeared before this committee on numerous occasions and will undoubtedly appear before it again when the nitrates action plan is in place, and brief the committee on it. Is it agreed to go into private session? Agreed.
The joint committee went into private session at 6 p.m and adjourned at 6.05 p.m., sine die.