Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine debate -
Wednesday, 24 Nov 2021

Nitrates Action Programme: Discussion (Resumed)

Chairman

We will now discuss Ireland's nitrates action programme. The Minister, Deputy McConalogue, remains with us. I welcome Mr. Jack Nolan, senior inspector in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine's nitrates, biodiversity and engineering division. I took a look at the Minister's opening statement and do not believe he will overrun this time.

Before we begin, I must read an important notice on parliamentary privilege. Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter but continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected to the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Deputy Charlie McConalogue)

I thank the Chairman for the invitation to speak to the committee on the nitrates directive and Ireland's forthcoming 2022 nitrates action programme. In addition to Mr. Nolan, I am joined by Dr. Kevin Smyth, assistant secretary.

It is important to highlight in the first instance that the regulations governing the nitrates action programme are the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Darragh O’Brien, with my Department administering the nitrates derogation that is provided for under the regulation. My Department is fully engaged in developing and supporting a new revised and strengthened programme and derogation for 2022. This is a key commitment in the programme for Government.

The agriculture sector is committed to stabilising and improving water quality. The review of the nitrates action programme provides a timely opportunity to review the impact of agriculture on our water environment and support agriculture's ambitions to stabilise and improve water quality while seeking as many co-benefits for climate, air and biodiversity as possible. My Department is working closely with the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage to develop a cohesive policy response in delivering and implementing policy on water quality to coincide with the delivery of the next river basin management plan. Both Departments are also working closely with the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, on reviewing water quality monitoring and water quality trends, and investigating and understanding the pressures from nutrient, pesticides and sediment losses from agriculture.

My Department has been at the forefront of assessing the regulatory baseline for agriculture and proactive in reviewing and balancing measures to minimise the impact of agriculture on the environment. Ireland has been a leader in the EU in protecting the environment through a strong approach that includes nitrogen and phosphorus in our regulations unlike most other EU member states where nitrogen is the sole nutrient regulated. However, we must recognise that recent trends in water quality have not been in the right direction and my Department is fully supportive of working with farmers to reverse this.

We initiated a voluntary review of the nitrates derogation in 2019, covering 7,000 farmers who availed of the facility. That review introduced additional measures on such farms to improve on-farm efficiencies and reduce agriculture’s impact on the environment, for example, the use of trailing shoe technology and preventing access to watercourses. Additional measures have also been introduced for a further 5,000 farmers in 2021 who do not avail of the derogation but are farming at a similarly high level of intensity.

In order to develop future agricultural measures for the protection of the environment as part of the current nitrates action programme review process, Teagasc was asked to review and model the impact of future potential measures. This work concluded that a number of additional measures would minimise nutrient losses to the environment further. The nitrates derogation, which provides for 250 kg of nitrogen from livestock manure per hectare, was considered environmentally safe based on Ireland's grass-based system of production.

My Department and I have been aligning agricultural policies and strategies to ensure a coherent approach to meeting agriculture's commitments to the environmental challenges of climate, air, water and biodiversity. Agriculture has a significant role to play in meeting environmental targets across all of these issues. The strong support and work being delivered by farmers to address these environmental issues must be acknowledged.

A nitrates expert review group has been put in place to review the nitrates action programme and make recommendations on foot of the two periods of consultation earlier this year. That review will shortly conclude. I look forward to considering its recommendations, which I anticipate receiving shortly.

Ireland has applied for a nitrates derogation as provided for in the nitrates directive and that to date has been made available on the basis of strict scientific criteria. In line with the current nitrates action programme, Ireland's current derogation expires on the last day of this year. Ireland is currently negotiating the next nitrates action programme and working through a process to achieve a new programme and derogation. In order to allow these negotiations come to a fruitful conclusion and secure a favourable opinion on Ireland's application, a vote on Ireland's derogation has been postponed until early March, by which time Ireland's new nitrates regulations should be in place.

I thank the committee for its attention and time and will be happy to take questions from members.

Deputy Martin Browne

When officials from the Department were last before us, I asked whether we knew which types of operator were not compliant with the European Union (Good Agriculture Practice for Protection of Waters) Regulations, or GAP regulations, and whether a line had been drawn in terms of how high-risk areas were targeted to ensure that there was no undue imposition on farms. I was told that, regarding compliances and inspections, we did not have the data on the types of issue that were arising. Is this not a potential problem, given the lack of data on the types of operator that are non-compliant with these regulations? A lack of specific data can lead to misrepresentation of farms' compliance in general and limits the progress being made on tackling breaches of the regulations. Clearly, a distinction must be made between the few operators that may be flouting the regulations deliberately and the majority of operators who are doing their level best to comply and to contribute to the protection of our environment.

I ask the Minister to outline the progress that is being made between the EPA and the local authorities through the new information system, NIS, network in improving the collection of this type of data.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I thank the Deputy for his very good question. As a Minister, you have to be a Jack of all trades but not necessarily a master of all.

Deputy Martin Browne

The Minister is good.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

Thankfully, within the Department there are people who are top of this detail and who serve this sector well. Mr. Jack Nolan, who is with me today, is the Department's lead on the nitrates action programme. I will ask him to come in on the Deputy's questions and the detail he is seeking.

Mr. Jack Nolan

I am part of the NIS working group that is looking at farm inspections with the local authorities and the EPA. We are trying to ensure that local authorities are fully cross-reporting any problems they identify on the ground. There is a facility there that will make the job easier for local authority inspectors that is not being availed of at the moment. We know there is a high level of non-compliance with the slurry storage requirement on dairy farms. This is a particular issue that has been highlighted by the Department and by farmers themselves over the past year. There is no individual non-compliance that we can point to that will be a silver bullet and improve water quality. We need to improve in every area and that will contribute to improving water quality.

We have found that farms that have expanded greatly over the past number of years may not have invested enough in farmyard facilities. There is an increasing spotlight on that. That situation will improve over the coming period and that will contribute to improving water quality.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Nolan and call Deputy Leddin.

Deputy Brian Leddin

I welcome the Minister and his officials. He mentioned that a strengthened nitrates action programme and nitrates derogation in 2022 are key commitments in the programme for Government. I would like to put on the record that this is not true. I have searched the programme for Government and it does not state that. I mention that in the context of the challenge we have and my concern that with the nitrates derogation we are not going to achieve our targets on water quality and that we are going to fail with regard to our objectives under the EU water framework directive to have our water bodies in good status by 2027. As things stand, that simply is not achievable. That is what we were told by the experts from the EPA when they appeared before the committee in recent months.

I note from the Minister's statement that he is aware of the importance of the derogation for many farmers and that he is entirely committed to protecting it while at the same time improving water quality. I am not sure those two objectives are consistent with each other. The EPA has noted that a one-size-fits-all approach will not be adequate to achieve the outcomes that we need and, therefore, measures must be targeted to achieve water quality objectives. They need to be targeted and specific to the soil activities and risks on the farms. The nitrates derogation is a blunt instrument. We know that there is a correlation between the derogation farms and the collapse in water quality in the catchments around those farms. We need to look very seriously at this issue. I acknowledge that the Minister is serious about his role and the objective of improving water quality in those catchments, but this situation whereby we continue to go to Europe to apply for the derogation and we concurrently have to bring in ever-more severe and challenging nitrates action programmes that apply to all farmers is not going to lead to an improvement in our water quality. Farmers throughout the country who are not derogation farmers are effectively being penalised because of that.

I would like to hear more from the Minister. Does he believe that we should get more targeted in our approach to dealing with water quality issues, in particular in the south and east of the country, which are particularly badly affected? There has been a significant increase in nitrates and phosphate levels in our watercourses. If we are not listening to the EPA, we can bring in a fifth nitrates action plan or a sixth nitrates action plan but we simply will not get to where we need to go. The fourth nitrates action plan was an abject failure. How can we have confidence that the fifth plan, with its more stringent criteria, will achieve the improvements in water quality that we need to see in our watercourses throughout the country, but particularly in the south and east of the country?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I believe it is possible and compatible to have the nitrates derogation and improvements in water quality. The objective behind putting in place stringent criteria and conditions in the awarding of the derogation to any one farmer is to ensure farmers apply the additional nitrogen and achieve a higher stocking rate in a way that effectively manages that nutrient and that resource so that it grows grass but does not impact on water quality. We cannot have a situation whereby water quality in the country is deteriorating. It has been going in the wrong direction in recent times and we must address that. It can be done and we are working to achieve it as part of the nitrates derogation. The Deputy is correct that it is not straightforward in that it is very much particular to different soil types. It is about trying to ensure that we are applying the right measures and the right conditions in the right places.

Many of our nitrates farmers adopt exceptionally good practices in the controls they have in place to manage and protect water quality. It is crucial that this should happen across the board. The Deputy is correct that a small number of farmers not carrying out the right practices can have a detrimental impact, one which impacts on everyone else. We have to take a very hard line and ensure that people take responsibility for the activities they are carrying out. Chemical fertiliser and organic fertiliser can be very powerful if used appropriately. This is something that we have valued tremendously throughout history and throughout agricultural production be that in regard to seaweed or the very careful and efficient use of manures long before chemical fertiliser was available. We know the benefits of chemical fertiliser, where used appropriately. Likewise, something that can be a nutrient, a driver or a tonic, if used wrongly, can be detrimental. It is really important that fertiliser, whether organic or chemical, is used appropriately by everyone. As a farming nation and as an agricultural sector we take a very hard line in regard to anyone who is not doing that.

In putting this nitrates derogation in place, it is important that we have appropriate safeguards that are followed by everyone in terms of how it is applied. I will ask Mr. Nolan to comment further.

Mr. Jack Nolan

The Deputy is correct that it is a challenge and that a one size does not fit all. That has been recognised. We have more restrictions on intensive farms than we do on other farms. I do not agree that ever-more severe restrictions are being introduced on every farm in the country. The Minister mentioned that we had a voluntary derogation review in 2019. That was done at the behest of the Government. It was not initiated on behalf of anybody else. That review resulted in the introduction of measures such as compulsory use of low emission equipment on derogation farms, which reduced the level of crude protein that can be fed to dairy cows on intensive farms, compulsory use of grassland measurement and compulsory training for derogation farmers.

We are differentiating all the time. Earlier this year, we asked Teagasc to model some of the proposed measures that will be introduced, possibly next year, and they show that we can meet the targets that the EPA has set. We work very closely with the EPA. Those who were here from the EPA the same night we attended are part of a working group with us on the nitrates expert group. As recently as last week, we were on a farm in Kildare with the EPA, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, and Teagasc looking at how measures will be implemented on farms. Therefore, there is a coherent and collaborative approach to water quality in Ireland.

I disagree that we will not achieve our targets; I think we will. We need more - the Minister has stressed it. It has been publicly said by farmers for the first time. We need stricter enforcement, particularly by local authorities. We need industry to become involved and help farmers in moving along, and changing, the dial. In New Zealand, they have done studies on where water quality would be if they had not the changes that we have introduced already. We have moved. The Minister is right in saying - he said it in the opening statement - farmers have invested significantly. They will be asked to invest more but it is unfair to brand all farmers or say agriculture is completely responsible. There are a small minority who are causing a lot of harm and over the next number of years they will be targeted more and more. We are using the water quality data from the EPA to target inspections and water quality will improve. We firmly believe, along with the EPA, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, and Teagasc, that the new CAP and the new regulations, along with support from industry, will contribute to improving water quality in Ireland.

Deputy Brian Leddin

I thank Mr. Nolan and the Minister. I welcome the comments from both.

To put it on the record, I certainly was not blaming all farmers. Mr. Nolan was right to say that not all farmers are to blame but it is certainly not my position that they are.

If we get that derogation from Europe but we also accept that there needs to be a targeted approach, will the Minister consider that derogations would not be granted for lands that drain into water courses that are considered at risk by the EPA? Maybe this is something that has already been discussed in that working group. I do not want to necessarily put the Minister on the spot or get an answer from him here and now, but I favour the targeted catchment approach to fixing the quality of water and using the derogation or, as the case may be, not giving a derogation to farms that are draining into those rivers, where a correlation can be shown where the derogation is leading to the degradation of water quality. I would appreciate if the Minister could consider that level of approach to the problem because it is a very serious problem that we have.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I thank Deputy Leddin. I will ask Mr. Nolan to come in in a second again. I reiterate what I said. In terms of all farming types and all farming practices right across the sector, we have to be determined to ensure that water quality is central to what we do, to ensure that it improves over the time ahead and to ensure that from an agricultural point of view our practice does not detrimentally impact it. Therefore, the controls and the advice we have in place is important, and particularly the advice we have in place around the derogation.

Mr. Jack Nolan

Deputy Leddin is right, and the Minister is right, that there must be a targeted approach. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine supports the agricultural sustainability support and advisory, ASSA, programme. That delivers targeted advice on farm. It is easy for me to sit here and say to farmers in Cork, Donegal or Wexford what they should do but until one is actually on the farm walking the land, it is impossible to say the measure that is most appropriate. In the next CAP, there is a commitment that we are looking at this kind of approach. For example, there will be learnings taken in from the European innovation partnerships, EIPs, where farmers are part of the solution and they are not being talked at - they are being talked with and allowed to come up with the solutions to the problems.

There is a recognition among farmers that things have to change, and change more rapidly. We are not disagreeing about anything here about the change that is need. It is just the pace, and the pace can only be accelerated with more support, I believe, from the consumer and from industry, to help farmers with the investments that are needed and also around education. We have to give farmers credit for the amount of knowledge transfer and knowledge exchange that they underwent in the previous CAP and through the previous derogation programme, and keep providing that. There is a commitment in the programme for Government that the ASSA programme will be continued. That is supported by all farmers and by industry. It is a collaborative approach between the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. We will achieve a lot of success through such an approach - going onto farms and giving direct advice about what needs to be done.

Deputy Brian Leddin

I thank the Minister and Mr. Nolan.

Senator Paul Daly

I thank the Minister. I welcome Mr. Nolan and thank him for being here.

On the previous occasion the Minister was in here, I raised two points. I will not quote the Minister on anyone else's points which were raised on the day. No doubt the members will bring it up.

On slurry spreading and wastewater storage, nitrates action plans aside, like never before farmers will want to get the maximum value from their slurry in the coming year with the projected prices and, indeed, availability of chemical fertilisers. To maximise that and to meet the targets and the calendar windows of spreading, many will probably need to extend their storage capacity. With current building prices and building material prices escalating, would it be possible, in conjunction with this plan, to have another look at the targeted agriculture modernisation scheme, TAMS, and the ceilings and the percentages of costs that can be covered? For example, let it be 60:40. The 40% of an exorbitant price is a much bigger spend on the farmer's part than it would have been in the past. The farmers will more than meet the Minister halfway on this one now because they all will be glad to be able to provide facilities to store their slurry until the growth comes in, depending on what part of the country one is in, whatever month that is. The Chairman could probably be putting it out in February but up my end of the woods, one would be nearer to May before one would be getting any value for it.

The other issue I raised on the last occasion, to reiterate it, is the 30 km rule. I can see why that would be considered when we are talking about derogation farmers renting land to keep their stocking rate down or whatever. However, if that rule were to be followed through on, for instance, where I am from, around Westmeath and Meath, in particular, we have a lot of people from Deputy Fitzmaurice's area in the west of Ireland who would come up and rent bits of land to do a bit of finishing. They would still have very low stocking rates - they would not be anything near derogation - but if that 30 km is across the board, it would seriously affect them going forward. Those were the two points I raised on the previous occasion that I want to repeat.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I will let Mr. Nolan come in.

Mr. Jack Nolan

I thank Senator Paul Daly. Slurry, at the minute, is worth €50 per 1,000 gallons. It is very valuable. Fertiliser prices have nearly trebled. They are up 250%. The Department fully supports the idea of getting slurry out at the right time of year - whether that is in May or February - depending on soil type, etc. There will be a huge change in that. We are fully supportive of it through the advice that is given by farm advisory system, FAS, advisers, whether they are private advisers or through Teagasc.

To reiterate, as we said on the previous occasion, the 30 km rule was a proposal but, based on the feedback we have received, that will not be introduced. The 30 km rule will not be introduced. There will be a limit on the stocking rate on commonage because it is artificially being used by intensive farmers to dilute their stocking rate but the 30 km rule is not being introduced.

Chairman

What price would one put fertiliser at to come up with €50 per 1,000 gallons?

Mr. Jack Nolan

This is on the Teagasc website.

Chairman

I hope the price of fertiliser comes down a bit from that.

Mr. Jack Nolan

It is €700 for a can at present. I was told the other day it is €1,000 for 10:10:20.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I said I would come down because we got a power cut the last time.

Chairman

They made out the Deputy bit the flex.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I might have with vex.

First of all, I am a contractor, but I am a small Mickey Mouse contractor when it comes to slurry in case someone would go throwing it at me. In relation to the low emissions slurry spreading which is planned to come in more over the next few years, it is contractors that put out 90% to 95% of slurry. To be quite frank about it, and farmers themselves would tell the Minister this, some of them have got the tankers and the gear for putting behind it. With them being busy or with, maybe, a tractor not big enough for agitating or whatever, they struggle at times. Is there any work with the Association of Farm and Forestry Contractors in Ireland, FCI, to see could it come up with something to help them on the TAMS side of it?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I must check the detail on this but my recollection is that there is a restriction in CAP on who can be funded from TAMS. I think it has to be farmers but I will check that. There has been a massive and welcome uptake in the past three or four years of low emission slurry spreading under TAMS. About €100 million has been spent on it through the Department through the TAMS grant. There are about 3,000 low emission slurry spreading machines in the country now. There is great capacity there and it makes great sense. It is a win-win in terms of the efficiency of the slurry being spread. It costs farmers less. When they use this approach they get far more benefit out of the fertiliser and it significantly reduces emissions. It means about 15% of all slurry is spread using less equipment and that has resulted in a reduction in ammonia emissions of 7%. It is something that we need to drive on because it can really make a big difference.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Mr. Nolan spoke of the 30 km rule. Senator Paul Daly mentioned this. There is a problem and there is no point in my hiding behind it. There can be people 100 miles away taking land to cover them for nitrates. We have to talk openly about it. How will that be resolved? There will not be people spreading slurry on the side of a mountain, to be blunt, and not all mountains are commonage.

Mr. Jack Nolan

As part of this review, we are talking about implementation, as Deputy Martin Browne mentioned earlier. We are talking to our own colleagues in cross-compliance too. If you have land on your basic payments that is, say, 100 miles away, you will be at a higher risk for inspection because of nitrates. Not to blame the dairy farmers, but if you are a dairy farmer in Cork and you have land taken up in Mayo or somewhere, that is very unusual and that will put up a red flag in the future and those farmers will be more likely to receive an inspection. That is how that will be dealt with.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

But how do you see on the day where they put the slurry?

Mr. Jack Nolan

You know that it is not there and if there are not animals on the farm that are suitable for the land that is in Mayo then it is an artificial creation of a holding. Before, there used to be rules around distance and so on but now it around your farming type and whether you can prove that you are farming it. For example, if someone has mountain land and they only have dairy animals, it is obvious that is not what they are actually doing. That is how it will be targeted.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I have heard both Mr. Nolan and the Minister speaking about nitrates there. At the moment, if I am a farmer, I can lease out my single farm payment. No one can come to me and tell me what I have to do with nitrates or fine me or do anything, right or wrong.

Mr. Jack Nolan

No, as the Minister said at the start, the competent authorities in respect of these regulations are the local authorities and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. It is national law. Every farmer in the country has to comply with it. The local authorities do carry out inspections. We are talking to them about making them more meaningful and that they do it better because that is part of the whole nitrates action programme. You would be outside the loop for Department inspections for nitrates because the Department does it for cross-compliance if you receive basic payment, but the local authority should still be there inspecting you.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

To call a spade a spade, if you have your single farm payment leased out, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine will not be interested in you. You can stock whatever you want.

Mr. Jack Nolan

The Department will still call from animal welfare, feed point, tagging and so on but it is up to the local authority to implement it and bring the cases to court. There have been a number of cases in court in recent months for, say, cutting hedges outside the -----

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Cutting hedges and having cows over the stocking limits are two different ball games.

Mr. Jack Nolan

It is something that is outside of the control of the Minister or the Department. It is up to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the local authorities. I am not passing the buck but it is national legislation. We fulfil all our requirements as regards the number and type of inspections we need to do. This is national legislation. We are talking to the EPA, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the local authorities on how to better implement it.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Therefore, there is nothing stopping anyone who wants to lease their payments and have as many cows as they want.

Mr. Jack Nolan

There is because there is much more of a focus on nitrates as Deputy Leddin said earlier, as well as on water quality. The level of public acceptance has changed. People no longer accept pollution and so on. I think that local authorities will step up their enforcement and then it is open to them to act. There are fines of up to €500,000 if local authorities bring someone to court.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Mr. Nolan spoke about slurry storage and farmers being overstocked or expanded. Will there be a facility to grant-aid those farmers? There was a proposal that every shed would have to be covered or something. Would it not be better to give a grant for the ground to put in the tanks everywhere? Some farmers might be over their stock or area where they have enough storage. How does the Department plan to tackle that?

Mr. Jack Nolan

There was a proposal for ammonia emissions that every outside tank would have to be covered. However, after submissions everyone including the expert group agreed that should not be done now. There will be a review of that. That is not going to happen.

On grant-aiding slurry storage, the Department under EU regulation - and it is EU taxpayers' money as well as the Irish Exchequer - can only grant-aid farmers that are already compliant. You cannot give grant aid to someone who is non-compliant. This is where industry could step in with low-cost finance or to use things like the MilkFlex loan. As I said here last day, if I have a more energy efficient house, I will get a lower mortgage than someone who has not. Therefore why can the banks here not offer something similar? The Department cannot give grant aid to someone who is not compliant.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

There are about 118,000 farmers who operate and try to make a living at 170 kg/ha nitrates. There are probably 12,000 farmers over that. What is the rationale behind that?

Mr. Jack Nolan

We were in Moorepark on a visit the other day and we were also there in September. According to Teagasc, and research shows this, that the more grass you grow and that your animal eats, the more profitable you are.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

No, but what is the rationale if 170,000 want to stay under 170 kg/ha nitrates, that 12,000 are at 250 kg/ha?

Mr. Jack Nolan

There are scientific criteria in the directive that say if farmers meet things such as a long growing season, high rainfall, high denitrification capacity, that they can apply for a derogation. The 250 kg/ha on certain land is perfect, but on other land maybe it should be 50 kg/ha. Unless you get into the individual soil type, it is very hard to have a figure. Who says 170 kg/ha is right? It was a figure arrived at back in 1991. Teagasc research shows that if farmers comply with all the measures in the derogation, spread the slurry at the right time and similarly the chemical fertiliser and use the economic breeding index, EBI, and low crude protein, the derogation is sustainable and it should be something that Ireland avails of.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I might be going off track here on nitrates. We were talking about the eco scheme which will help with sequestration and nitrates. Will the Minister introduce more measures than are there currently? Is he aware that under the trees, and he is talking about growing three to hectare or whatever, that there could be a problem for some years in getting a tree that is strongish?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I will be bringing in more measures under the eco schemes in Pillar 1. The feedback has come back strongest around the country -----

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Does the Minister have an idea of what he is thinking about bringing in? Can he tell us?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I do, yes. A CAP consultative committee meeting will be held tomorrow at which we will discuss the options and additional options that we have in mind with all the key stakeholders. I will wait until then out of respect to the role carried out by the consultative committee, which is very important in terms of informing, assessing and feeding back the ideas of stakeholders on what is on the table and the overall shape of the CAP strategic plan. The key objective is to ensure that there are options available for all farmers to participate.

On the three trees per hectare, we have done some assessments and investigations. We feel there will be capacity to manage and provide for that. The Deputy is right. It is an important consideration. We have sought information on it and we are confident that there will be capacity to provide for it.

I think Mr. Nolan wishes to comment.

Mr. Jack Nolan

Just to add that outside CAP, last year the Minister announced €10 million for a soil sampling programme that is hitting the ground now.

Farmers are getting free soil samples that will give them-----

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

That is good.

Mr. Jack Nolan

-----more information than ever before. That was followed up this year by another €15 million. There will be several hundred thousand detailed soil samples available, which will also tell farmers what the level of carbon in their soil is. A baseline has been established.

In the most recent budget, the Minister also announced a €1 million scheme to encourage farmers to grow multispecies grass, which has plants that root at different depths. In other countries it is claimed that these will sequester more carbon. These kinds of opportunities are being looked at and supported outside of CAP.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Is it possible that that budget will be increased? This is for the simple reason that multispecies grasses are nearly twice the price. The cost is approximately €95 per acre as against €60 per acre. While €1 million is welcome, if we are trying to bring farmers throughout the country on board, is there any way of upping it a bit?

I will say to the Minister, and this might be case of "Take a fool's advice", that if grass seeds are sown that a farmer will not be able to spray, generally, the back end of the year is always the best time for less weeds and stuff. Are officials looking at sowing early this spring or during the back end of the year?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

We do not have any particular requirement for when the seed is sown. It is something we want to encourage in the context of the next CAP because there is real potential in it from a financial point of view. I will ask Mr. Nolan to comment more on how it can be accounted for in schemes and how additional costs involved in one particular type of sward over another can be paid for. From an economic point of view, there are financial merits for a farmer sowing either clover or multispecies sward because it reduces cost and increases profit. It makes a lot of sense from that perspective. We are also trying to support it through CAP measures. Mr. Nolan will elaborate on the costings.

Mr. Jack Nolan

The Deputy is correct about the costs. It is about €96 an acre for six-species grass seed, which is meant to be the best. It includes two clovers, two herbs and two grasses. We hope to roll it out, with the Minister's approval, as early as possible to give farmers a chance to plan ahead for it. It is planned that the scheme will subsidise farmers at a rate of €50 per acre to meet the difference between the cost of the grass seed and multispecies seed and that it will cover 20,000 acres. If we could get farmers to take this up that would be substantial, because there are only approximately 200,0000 or 300,000 acres every year. The cost of fertiliser was mentioned. According to research, clover will save three bags of calcium ammonium nitrate an acre, which costs €180 at current prices. There are significant savings if we go down this road.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I will raise the issue of marrying up schemes, which the Chairman has, in fairness, raised on numerous occasions, in addition to me and other members. I am hearing a negative view from people in the sector who, in the past day or two, met officials in the Department who are drawing up the schemes. If a farmer went on the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, was on it for two years and then applied for a forestry licence, which could take a year or two, that farmer could not get the licence and was basically in a straitjacket. If some farmer wants to sow three, four or five acres of trees under the new rural environment protection scheme, REP, or whatever the new environmental scheme is called - which will help with nitrates and sequestration - and part of the land is stuck in the section that was in REP, will the Department look at that to ensure that farmer is not paying back over five years or is not screwed like that? Is the Department willing to look at that and to give a commitment that the scheme will be workable? Everyone is talking about trees but nobody seems able to give the go-ahead to sow them.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I have asked the team to ensure that in every way possible we are putting schemes in place that are flexible in that regard and, furthermore, that everywhere we can we are encouraging, incentivising and facilitating people to plant trees and forestry, that it all adds up and that there are no perverse disincentives or blockages. We have to work within the confines of the overall EU regulations, etc., but I have asked the team to look in great detail at what we can do to ensure that it all marries up with the core objective, which is that we facilitate trees and forestry and, in every way we can, provide for, allow for and encourage them.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I cannot understand that the terms and conditions of GLAS state that the EU promotes the sowing of trees and all of that - and it could be due to the EU rather than the Department because we see it in appeals - but also state that we cannot go near the ground that is on the scheme. I just cannot fathom it, if the EU is talking about trees, which is one of its big agendas at present, and a farmer who wants to sow a few acres of trees cannot do so. I ask the Minister to look at that.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I accept the Deputy's point. We are looking at that.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I again thank the Minister for being here. One point of clarity that has raised concern is that the Minister mentioned that the vote on Ireland's derogation has been postponed until March when it expires on 31 December. Am I correct in saying that the derogation will be extended to the new vote in March?

Mr. Jack Nolan

The Deputy is correct that the derogation will expire. It will not be extended. We do not have the authority to do so. For the first three months of next year, or until there is a vote, we will not have a derogation but no farmer will have exceeded the limit by that time. This situation also came up in 2014. We worked through it and got the vote at the next meeting. We anticipate that the same thing will happen this time so it should not be a concern for farmers.

Deputy Matt Carthy

Okay, but there is an element of risk. It might be a small one, but is there not a risk with that particular strategy?

Mr. Jack Nolan

We are negotiating with the Commission. We have very good water quality by comparison with other member states. We fully accept that we have more to do. The Minister said in his opening statement that we fully accept there is a declining trend that we need to reverse. We are making good progress in our negotiations and our action programme. I will go back to what Deputy Browne said, which is that a key element will be enforcement and implementation of what we have already. We anticipate that we will have a positive vote in March.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I thank Mr. Nolan. I will reiterate what others have said. The one area that we cannot blame on anyone else, and I have mentioned this at previous meetings, is our water quality. We are an island and, once we operate and co-ordinate on an all-Ireland basis, which we should do, then we have no one else to blame for failings. The truth is that there have been failings. It is not good enough that the quality of many of our watercourses has declined over a number of years. That is not all the fault of farmers. It is scandalous that some 30 towns and villages are pumping raw sewage into our waterways, but it is an area about which the Irish public will be particularly unforgiving, if we do not get this right. I will make the point that all of this is crucially important.

There has been quite a bit of emphasis on low emission slurry spreading. I discussed this with Mr. Nolan the last time. Has the Minister seen the potential issue that might arise if the use of low emission slurry spreading, LESS, equipment is mandatory? It means it cannot, therefore, be funded under TAMS or any other scheme for that matter, as I understand it. It is hard to see how removing grant aid will expedite uptake among people who have not taken the scheme up at this point. Has the Minister given any consideration to how we can overcome that particular anomaly?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

As Mr. Nolan pointed out, we cannot grant aid somebody to get into compliance, if that person is not compliant.

Where something becomes a requirement for a particular farm, the farmer cannot receive grant aid for it. That is why it is important that we give lead-in times and notice of what is coming down the tracks and an adjustment period. That was done in the context of the low-emission slurry spreading, LESS, grants for slurry spreaders. Notice was given of what was coming down the tracks in order to allow those who would need to do it in future to become compliant and have the opportunity to avail of that grant aid to be able to get the equipment. Likewise, I foresee that the approach to be taken will give due notice to allow people to avail of grants and support to get the equipment to enable them to do it. However, as is the case now, those who are not in compliance cannot be grant-aided. That will continue to be the case.

Deputy Matt Carthy

That is the point I am trying to make in terms of the requirement, per se, in terms of how imaginative it is possible to be in its framing. If people are not in compliance by the end of this period, incentives will be needed to get them there.

To return to the point made by Deputy Fitzmaurice in respect of farm contractors, I find it bizarre that there is no problem grant-aiding people in Dublin, who probably have a bus stop outside their door, to move from a diesel vehicle to an electric one, but the Department cannot grant-aid farm contractors to move to a particular type of technology that would be of substantially more benefit to the environment. In the context of interactions with the EU, we need to ensure we have imaginative proposals that actually allow money to be targeted at areas that are proven in terms of delivering.

Reference was made to mixed swards. Mr. Nolan spoke about their value in terms of sequestration. That is almost becoming accepted. I ask him to provide an outline of the impact those types of swards have in terms of nitrates and whether there are measures that could be used that would encourage derogation farmers to make that shift. Is there evidence they have been making that shift already? If so, how can we accelerate that?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I thank the Deputy. I will hand over to Mr. Nolan.

Mr. Jack Nolan

On the Deputy's question relating to LESS, we have to accept that 99% of ammonia comes from agriculture and that needs to change very quickly. The Minister is 100% right in his statement that there will be a glide path, but we need to change and accept that. It is the same as what the Deputy said about water quality. It is just not acceptable anymore. Many farmers are probably contractors, or vice versa, and may be availing of grant aid that way. It might be awkward for them, but they are able to get grant aid. The Deputy is correct that it would help a lot if contractors got grant aid for low-emission equipment.

On the issue of mixed swards, I refer to what Teagasc has shown There was a smart sward project in UCD, run by Helen Sheridan and Tommy Boland and funded by the Department. It showed that nitrogen can be reduced by 100 kg per hectare and there are health benefits from that. Teagasc research has shown for the past 20 years the effects of using clover. It is the clover in the mixed swards that really helps to reduce nitrogen. When we did a derogation review in 2019, we made it compulsory for derogation farmers to include clover when reseeding. That will help them to reduce nitrogen. We have already made it compulsory. Teagasc appeared before the committee last week or the week before that to discuss carbon sequestration and climate change. It has towers on these different types of swards, such as Italian rye grass mixed species swards. There is one at Johnstown Castle in County Wexford. In the next three years, it will show what the actual reductions are from mixed-species swards and what the benefits are with regard to sequestration, but we know that currently nitrogen can be reduced by up to 100 kg per hectare by using clover which is part of a mixed sward.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I thank Mr. Nolan. I do not know if he or the Minister will answer my next question. We had a bit of a debate on the previous occasion Mr .Nolan appeared before the committee in respect of the section of the consultation document that referred to the need for all farmers, including non-derogation farmers, to fence off water courses. I refer to the particular anomaly in respect of those undesignated lands and the provision in that regard. At that stage, Mr. Nolan told me it would be dealt with. I ask him to provide us with an update on the solution on that issue.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

We are looking at solutions in respect of that issue. It is important that we do so. We have different options under consideration and hope to be able to bring clarity to that in the near future.

Deputy Matt Carthy

While we are talking about slurry and all the rest of it, the Minister has stated previously that the position in respect of the use of anaerobic digestion is very poor, even by European standards. I think we are 20th in terms of the development of that sector. How important will the development of anaerobic digestion be in terms of addressing the issues of storage and energy generation? Is there a route by which farmers can collaborate and use anaerobic digestion to secure a new income stream?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

There is a real role for anaerobic digestion. It is something we need to progress. I have secured funding for it under the national development plan in terms of capital investment to support pilot initiatives in this area. It is a far more expensive way of producing energy than other renewable alternatives, but it has the benefit of feeding into the circular economy and making use of nutrients and taking energy from it as well as retaining the fertiliser capacity of the nutrients for that purpose. I am very focussed on it. The Department and officials are working with the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications in respect of moving this forward. There is real potential. It is undoubtedly expensive as a straightforward energy production method.

Senator Tim Lombard

I apologise for joining the meeting so late. I got caught up with other meetings. My apologies. My questions will be brief as time has moved on.

I ask Mr. Nolan or the Minister to comment on the Teagasc agricultural catchments programme in respect of nitrates. The programme involves six different locations, one of which is in Timoleague. It has been running for the past decade. Where does that fit into the data that are being collected in respect of the science on the nitrates issue itself? I received a very interesting presentation today on the issue. I refer to the six catchment areas, the different soil types and the issues in the context of nitrates and how they are being affected. From an agricultural point of view, it was really good information to get out there on how a soil type could be the more defining factor when it comes to nitrates.

It also brought into focus the issues in respect of a very dry summer. If there is a very dry summer, as was the case in 2018 - maybe Mr. Nolan will comment on that - the nitrate levels in all rivers automatically go up because of the environmental factors relating to a dry summer. There is a significant amount of information there of which I think the farming community is not aware. It is a body of work that the committee may take on board at some stage. We need to start considering the organic nitrogen - not the bad nitrogen - that is being produced, how that can be affected by weather conditions and how it can affect river quality. Even if farmers were to grow vast quantities of clover tomorrow morning, that does not mean the organic nitrogen will not leach out of their soil, depending on the soil type, and go into rivers.

There is a significant amount of information we could consider in respect of the Teagasc-run institution for the past decade. Does the Minister have plans to invest more in this programme? It is being run on only six sites at the moment. What is the view of Mr. Nolan on the programme? Where does he believe this information ties in? I believe Teagasc has slightly different figures, in terms of quantification of nitrates, from the EPA.

Am I right in saying it measures water quality every ten minutes regarding machines and the EPA, which measures four or five times a year? The Minister and Mr. Nolan might comment on where this will feed into the process?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

There is so much we can learn from those six catchment areas. I recently visited Castledockrell catchment area. Eddie Burgess is the official running that. I certainly learned a lot from that visit. There is so much all of us can learn from the experience and research. Overall, the message is that it really speaks to the fact that it is very different for different soil types. It is not straightforward; rather it is quite a complex area in terms of how nutrients react and how different soil types can absorb and respond to different levels of nutrients. As Mr. Nolan said, a nitrates farmer on 250 kg of chemical nitrogen can operate in a way that is very manageable and sustainable yet on a different type of soil, a much lower level of input can have much more potential for impacting water. It is really complex and there is a lot we can learn. I am committed to see how we can develop, expand and learn. The key point is to take the learnings we have from those catchment programmes and expand them to farm level across the country. I will hand over to Mr. Nolan for further comment.

Mr. Jack Nolan

The catchment programme is key. It was being funded at €1.5 million per year, which the Minister increased to €2.5 million per year two years ago. It now includes climate as well as water, which is key, so members can see the co-benefits. All the information Teagasc provides from the catchments feeds into the nitrates review. Commission officials from Brussels have visited the catchments on three separate occasions to look at the soils and hear about the research. The Senator spoke about the dry soils and dry weather in 2018. Research from catchments shows that climate will overwhelm all the measures we put in place. That is not an excuse for us not to put measures in place. We just have to accept that this is something that is there. It also shows that if farmers do what they are meant to be doing, we can improve water quality. We have not got there yet. The farmers in the catchments are getting individual advice and free soil samples. That is where the agricultural sustainability support and advisory programme came from. It came from seeing how successful this catchments programme can be.

As regards expansion, the programme is the envy of our colleagues across Europe. They get water samples every ten minutes but the country as a whole could not afford that. The Senator said the EPA does four or five samples per year. This meets European standards and that will continue but the EPA visits the catchments as well. The catchment visited by the Minister was recently visited by the EPA. There is considerable sharing of data. People may not recognise that the Department, the EPA, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and Teagasc are working together, sharing these data and looking for solutions. These data play a very important role.

Chairman

I made a point about the bands. What are the witnesses' views on the bands and the promotion of the cross-bred cow? Is there any flexibility to increase the bands, particularly the middle band? Could the middle band be increased upwards? If a farmer is getting near that threshold, there is significant temptation to move to a cross-bred cow to bring down yield? This would be counterproductive to what we want to achieve as regards sustainability. Could there be some flexibility regarding the bands? The genetic merit of cows has improved dramatically, particularly during a year like this when there has been tremendous grass growth, and cows have milked exceptionally well. I would hate to see the introduction of these bands having a detrimental effect on the improvements in breeding we have seen. Could the Department look at that again and see if anything can be done with the bands so that people on the limit of a band will not think of doing things that would be detrimental to sustainability.

On behalf of the committee, I thank the Minister and officials from the Department for engaging with us on this important issue. I propose that we hold our next private meeting at 3.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 30 November. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The joint committee adjourned at 8.15 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 1 December 2021.