JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Wednesday, 15 Feb 2006

Draft Nitrates Regulations: Presentation.

Chairman

The first item on the agenda is a follow-up committee hearing on the implementation of EU legislation through national regulations, discussion of the draft nitrates regulations with representatives of the Irish Farmers Association. I welcome Mr. Walshe, Mr. Devlin, Mr. O'Keeffe and Mr. Maguire.

I wish to draw attention to the fact that while members of this committee have absolute privilege the same privilege does not extend to visitors. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Before I invite Mr. Walshe to make his presentation, I will list the reasons this Joint Committee on European Affairs is considering this issue at a second hearing. The primary aim of the nitrates directive is to address pollution of water from agricultural sources in the European Union. The directive is put into effect in the member states, such as Ireland, by means of national implementing legislation. This should achieve the agreed goal but leaves the member states a measure of leeway as to the exact rules to be adopted.

Initial concern had been expressed on previous occasions, notably by Senator Quinn, that the national implementation of EU directives in some form may have gone beyond what was required by the original text. If Ireland implemented an EU directive and the national regulations were over and above what the EU directive sought, there would be potential for serious job losses and hardship within a particular industry in this country. This is the premise for this committee's consideration of this directive. It was then agreed by the committee that the implementation in Ireland of the nitrates directive should be examined to assess whether this was occurring on this occasion.

It appears, from the previous meeting of the committee when this issue was explored, that while the Departments admitted that consultations took place from the beginning of this process, an impact assessment on the likely effects of the implementation of the nitrates directive was not undertaken. Had this been undertaken, there would have been a more timely warning of the actions that would be required to address any initial negative implications for the farming sector.

The committee has received two letters from the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. These go some way towards addressing the concerns of members with regard to a plan which has being promised and which has been referred to many times by Ministers in the Departments over a number of months. I take this opportunity to ask the IFA to examine these documents during the course of this hearing and I ask for the delegation's reaction to them.

Teagasc has also indicated to the committee in a fax received yesterday that it had not been possible to start an information campaign earlier because "a number of farm organisations have instructed their members not to attend Teagasc meetings". The committee will supply the delegation with a copy of that fax and it may wish to respond to points made. Research in relevant areas will increase following increased funding from the Department of Agriculture and Food.

That describes the premise for the committee's initial hearings. The committee is also anxious that some semblance of a plan be introduced by the Departments as they move forward with the implementation of this directive. The committee will ask the delegation's opinion on the information provided and on the statement from Teagasc.

I invite Mr. Walshe to make his presentation and the discussion will then be opened to members.

Mr. Pádraig Walshe

I thank the Chairman for his invitation to attend the meeting and to make a presentation. The implementation of this directive is unnecessary. The IFA accepts that the nitrates directive must be implemented but the method by which it is being implemented is over the top and goes too far. It will damage commercial agriculture in Ireland.

My fellow farmer beside me is Pat O'Keeffe. He attended the committee meeting on 1 December 2005, when he detailed the serious implications of the nitrates regulations for the intensive livestock production sector.

I will explain the implications of the directive and the regulations for all commercial farming in Ireland. I will first state the obvious, that farmers and their families live and work in the countryside and have a genuine interest in protecting the rural environment and its water quality. We farmers are the biggest users of quality water in rural Ireland.

It may be useful to consider farming in Ireland and how it compares with our European counterparts. Of the 7 million hectares of land, 4.4 million hectares, or 64%, are actively farmed, with approximately 650,000 hectares, or almost 10%, being used for forestry. It is clear that agriculture is by far the most prevalent land use in this country and that the rivers and streams flow through the countryside and replenish and drain the lakes.

All human activity impacts on the environment and has created the environment within which we exist. This is the case with agriculture as with urban, industrial, commercial and other possible land uses. Based on the good competing land uses we could choose, I am convinced that good farming, in particular, our grass-based agriculture, is by far the best land use. It underpins the high quality rural environment and the economic and social fabric of rural areas.

There are 140,000 farm holdings in this country, with an average size of almost 30 hectares or 74 acres. Approximately 270,000 people work either full-time or part-time in farming. Irish farming is about livestock production from grass. A total of 97% of grassland pasture is permanent, with a very small percentage reseeded each year. Permanent pasture is widely acknowledged as being highly effective in capturing nutrients. This is an important point in terms of comparison with our European counterparts and the type of farming we carry on. Only 6%, or 283,000 hectares, of the land area utilised for agriculture is used for tillage production.

How do we compare with our European counterparts in the intensity of our farming? This depends on how we measure intensity. For example, under the pre-single farm payment support schemes, 80,000 farmers claimed farm extensification premium, which imposed a restriction on the maximum stocking density. More than 62,000 farmers restricted themselves to a stocking density of no greater than 1.4 livestock units per hectare, or 0.56 Iivestock units per acre. This was an EU-wide scheme and we know the Irish figure included the highest number of farmer claimants, also in the percentage of farmers, of any member state.

The nitrates directive imposes restrictions on the amount of organic nitrogen that may be applied to land, that is, the nitrogen content in animal manure. With a national stocking density of 1.4 livestock units per hectare, Irish agriculture could be estimated to generate an organic nitrogen loading of 100 to 110 kg of organic nitrogen per hectare, which is considerably lower than the Netherlands, at 307 kg per hectare, and Belgium, at 187 kg per hectare. Denmark is next with approximately the same organic nitrogen level as Ireland but on soils which pose a much greater risk. European countries with larger tillage sectors impose lower organic nitrogen loadings. The loadings in Britain, France and Germany, for example, are 61 kg, 52 kg and 75 kg, respectively. These countries must, however, deal with other significant environmental consequences, including higher levels of chemicals, fungicides and pesticides in water and significant soil erosion.

The regulation signed by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, on Sunday, 11 December last, is excessive and goes far beyond what could be considered reasonable or necessary to protect water quality. The directive, agreed at European level in 1991, has as its objective the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. It requires member states to take action where waters breach certain nitrate concentrations or surface waters or could become enriched with excess nutrients. It sets a standard of 50 mg of nitrate per litre and requires member states to designate as vulnerable areas waters which breach the set criteria. In these vulnerable zones member states are required to implement action programmes to regulate farming activities.

Ireland has high quality water which compares favourably with that in other EU member states. The Environmental Protection Agency's environment report for 2004 states that the extent and degree of pollution in the State's fresh waters remain relatively moderate and compare well with the position in most other EU countries. The EPA also reports that 70% of rivers and 85% of lakes are in a satisfactory condition. Just 1% of rivers are classified as seriously polluted, with the majority of causes attributed to municipal wastewater treatment and industrial sources. Nitrogen concentrations in surface waters are well within the mandatory limit set for abstraction and drinking waters and the downward trend which became evident in the mid-1990s is continuing.

The EPA published its report on the quality of drinking water in Ireland in December. It reports that the quality of Ireland's drinking water continues to improve and indicates an overall compliance rate on all prescribed standards of 96.4%, compared to 96.1% in 2003. It has previously reported that the levels of nitrates in water supplies in public and group schemes are generally low and the majority of supplies comply with drinking water standards.

Agriculture and local authority sewage treatment are blamed for most instances of slight and moderate pollution of rivers. In many cases, however, the actual cause has not been established. Where no other cause is evident, it is attributed to a "land effect", which is usually put down to agriculture. There are, however, other important causes, including septic tanks, industrial causes and wastewater treatment by local authorities. The EPA has identified problems in the management of wastewater treatment plants by local authorities and non-compliance with EU requirements for wastewater, again by local authorities.

On groundwater, a monitoring programme has been in place since 1995 using 250 sampling locations. Overall, the EPA reports no widespread contamination of individual aquifers and most samples taken reflect unpolluted conditions. Only 11 of the 250 sampling locations had nitrate concentrations greater than 50 mg per litre, the level at which action would be required under the nitrates directive.

Given the threat to commercial agriculture from the nitrates regulations, farmers found it ironic to read a recent report from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, which ranked Ireland tenth out of 133 countries for environmental health, mainly because of our excellent water quality. Ireland was reported as achieving top place alongside Norway and Switzerland on water quality in Europe. Most of the ten countries ranked higher than Ireland were African states with minimal economic activity.

For the past two years, the debate on the nitrates action programme has centred on the requirement that Ireland achieve a derogation from the limit on organic nitrogen required by the directive and the significant costs compliance will impose on the farming community, thereby undermining its competitiveness. The derogation is an essential requirement if farmers are to be allowed to maximise their utilisation and production from grass. A number of reports have been published which set out the serious economic consequences for dairy farming if we do not achieve a workable derogation from the organic nitrogen restriction.

Pat O'Keeffe has briefed the joint committee on the grave implications for our intensive livestock production sector, which encompasses approximately 1,500 pig and poultry farmers and provides employment for 10,000 people. Pig and poultry farms need neighbouring farmers to use their manure as fertiliser. Without this co-operation among farmers, intensive agriculture cannot continue. Pig and poultry farmers produce more than 3.5 million pigs and 65 million chickens annually and are the key market for native grain production, consuming 1.1 million tonnes, valued at €140 million per year.

With the publication of the draft regulations in October and the detail of fertiliser restrictions included in Schedule 2 to the regulations, we became even more alarmed about the implications of the action programme for commercial farming. The restrictions go far beyond what could reasonably be considered necessary to protect water quality. The fertiliser limits included in tables 12 to 22 of the regulations are based on general fertiliser advice for farm management purposes which is intended to be used as guidance and interpreted by a farmer with his adviser at farm level. Such general advice was never intended for use in any legal instrument used to regulate farmers.

The tables contain excessive detail, are difficult to interpret and imply a level of precision not found in science or farming. For example, the nitrogen restrictions on grassland alone cover 16 stocking rates, changing the permitted nitrogen fertiliser limit for every one eighth change in the stocking rate. The phosphorus limits have varying fertiliser limits based on soil phosphorus content and 18 stocking rates. The practical effects of the fertiliser restrictions are serious for productive farming. The limits also eliminate the scope for grassland farmers to incorporate pig manure as a valuable fertiliser into their farming systems.

I welcome the decision by the Minister to defer implementing Part 3 of the regulations, which establishes the maximum nitrogen and fertiliser restrictions. The Minister indicated the purpose of the deferral was to allow Teagasc to review its advice to him on phosphorus. Unless significant changes are made to the fertiliser restrictions included in the regulations, farmers will be forced to reduce nitrogen usage by the equivalent of at least one bag of calcium ammonium nitrate nitrogen fertiliser per acre and between two and four bags of 0:7:30 phosphorus and potassium fertiliser per acre, below the amount recommended for efficient farming.

The nitrogen fertiliser restrictions will also undermine the ability of less intensive stock grassland farmers and farmers on poorish land to generate an income. The effects of the nitrogen restrictions on farmers within REPS at low stocking rates will force reductions in nitrogen usage by one third. John Donworth, writing in Tuesday's Farming Independent, confirms this point.

The restrictions on tillage are very serious and will act as a major disincentive to the use of pig and poultry manure and sewage sludge on tillage ground, an increasingly common practice in recent years. This will be disastrous for local authorities.

However, as I hope I have made clear, the nitrogen restrictions in the regulations are excessive and unnecessary and will damage output and income in farming, with no environmental gain. The Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has, on the advice of Dr. Seamus Crosse of Teagasc, requested that nitrogen also be included in the review of fertiliser limits currently under way. I would welcome the support of this committee also in that regard.

The regulations provide excessive powers to a range of unqualified persons for the purposes of enforcement. This range of powers included is unacceptable to all fair-minded people. Farmers have rights to privacy and their good name. They should not be subjected to a plethora of inspectors descending on them without justification exercising powers they should not hold.

It is unsafe to proceed with this regulation without significant amendment in order to allow farming to make its valuable contribution to the rural economy and environment. The fertiliser restrictions included in the regulations must be replaced with a clear requirement for farmers to farm in accordance with Teagasc's crop nutrient advice, observing the various recommendations included in this advice.

Chairman

I will take Mr. Walshe's last point first. Where are we in regard to this matter? What is the IFA's bottom line? I know the IFA has been in contact with the Departments but are we anywhere close to an agreement?

Mr. Walshe

My understanding is that Teagasc is presenting updated scientific advice to its board of management this week. Teagasc claims that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government did not take its initial advice. We have not seen the revised advice.

Chairman

Has the IFA not seen anything?

Mr. Walshe

No. As yet, we have not seen anything. We are not aware of the contents of the new advice. We expect our representatives on the boards will get it before the end of this week and we will look at it then. Teagasc also has to present the updated advice to the Department of Agriculture and Food. The advice will then be presented in Brussels.

The level of detail included in the action plan is totally unnecessary. It is as if fertiliser is a free constituent, especially chemical fertiliser, and farmers apply it willy-nilly. It is an expensive aspect of farm input and no farmer would apply more fertiliser than would give him an economic return. Teagasc is providing the advice to farmers in terms of the predicted economic return. Farmers are mindful of the potential effects on the environment.

Chairman

Mr. Walshe is aware that this joint committee includes members of the Government parties who will also have an opportunity to question him. An editorial in one national newspaper stated he was engaged in damaging posturing over the EU nitrates directive by announcing the withdrawal of his organisation from the social partnership talks and that this was clearly an attempt to protect IFA members' interests on the issue of water quality at the expense of the community at large. I am playing devil's advocate. Will Mr. Walshe respond to this claim, which is doing the rounds in certain circles in Dublin? I do not hold this opinion.

Mr. Walshe

I have been a firm believer in partnership. I was involved in the first social partnership talks as president of Macra na Feirme in 1987. I acknowledge the role played by the partnership process in this economy in the past 20 years. We went into the first plenary meeting in the partnership process last Wednesday and we had discussions with the Departments of Agriculture and Food, Finance, Environment, Heritage and Local Government and some other Departments. We had a good discussion on how we might improve the competitiveness of Irish agriculture. Part of that debate focused on the probable effect of the implementation of the nitrates directive on the future competitiveness of Irish agriculture. The Departments undertook to present a paper on this matter at the meeting scheduled for tomorrow.

I spoke to the Secretary General of the Department of Agriculture and Food on the way out of the meeting and emphasised to him the need for a review of nitrogen levels in addition to phosphorus levels. I was amazed when my colleague, Mr. Jim Devlin, rang an hour later to tell me he had been informed by a Department official that it had taken out an advertisement in the Irish Farmers’ Journal that morning moving ahead with the implementation of the directive. That is not partnership as I know it. I could not achieve anything in the partnership process for my members that would compensate them for the damage which will be caused by the directive. I was left with no alternative at that stage but to withdraw from the partnership process until this mess is sorted out.

Chairman

Will Mr. Walshe quantify the damage? He has referred to significant amendment being required. I have heard varying opinions about how much damage this will do.

Mr. Walshe

In terms of nitrogen application alone, the cutback that is required ranges from about 15% to 30% or 40%. That 15% gives commercial farmers the extra production that generates their profit. A 15% cut in fertiliser application has the potential to reduce farmers' profits by over half. This would have a knock-on effect on whether young people would decide to stay in the industry. I am not an economist. Perhaps Mr. Devlin will wish to make a stab at figures in this regard. I reckon the cost will be in hundreds of millions of euro for Irish agriculture.

A Teagasc pig specialist told the Teagasc board at its meeting in Mount Juliet in January that, in his opinion, at least half of the pig farmers in this country would be put out of business as a result of this directive. The same will apply to poultry farmers. There are 1,500 pig and poultry farmers. At least 750 people will be put out of business. We are talking about hundreds of millions of euro.

One of the big issues for many people in the future is the decisions that have been taken in the WTO and on CAP reform. We are continually told by the media and in conferences around the country that we have to scale up. How can we scale up if we cannot use the tools of our trade? Farmers feel they are being expected to farm with at least one hand tied behind their backs. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has been irresponsible in trying to undermine our figures — which come from the EPA — in terms of water quality.

At that first meeting on social partnership I was presented with a document by the Taoiseach which stated that 96.4% of our water met all prescribed standards, yet that very same week the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government issued a statement to the effect that 20% of our water was below the required standard. The Department was using a guideline figure from a water framework directive of 25 parts per million whereas the nitrates directive has a stated objective of 50 parts per million. Less than 2% of our water is above 50 parts per million. Some 20% of our water is above 25 parts per million, which is part of a guideline in a water framework directive. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has engaged in misleading propaganda.

Chairman

After this question I will open the floor to members. Has Mr. Walshe any response to the claim by Teagasc in a letter we received yesterday that it was not possible to start an information campaign because a number of farming organisations have instructed their members not to attend Teagasc meetings?

Mr. Walshe

At our AGM on 17 January, members proposed that we should not co-operate with Teagasc because of its role in the nitrates directive. To put it bluntly, this is because we have lost confidence in Teagasc management.

Chairman

Fine.

Mr. Walshe

Teagasc management is responsible for where we are. It has misled Ministers and the Departments. Some members may have heard the director of Teagasc, Dr. Flanagan, on the "Today with Pat Kenny" radio show, where he admitted——

Chairman

Mr. Walshe does not have privilege.

Mr. Walshe

I am sorry, Chairman.

The director of Teagasc stated in my presence on the radio show that the production economics of agriculture were not taken into account in the advice he gave the Government. He also said he regarded Teagasc as an arm of Government and would not produce science that would embarrass it. This is a totally inappropriate role for a scientific body to adopt and therefore our members have lost confidence in its management, thus resulting in the circumstances that now obtain.

Deputy McCormack

I thank Mr. Walshe for his presentation. There seems to be a lot of shadow-boxing taking place in this campaign. I understand Teagasc has offered to review the nitrates directive for the Minister if asked. I do not know whether the Minister has done so. Mr. Walshe is now telling us Teagasc has reviewed the directive and is to present the report to its own board. That is not very significant to me. Will they be presenting it to the Minister? If so, we can ask the Minister what action will be taken.

The second last paragraph of the letter from the Department of Agriculture and Food deals in detail with the presentation to the EU officials of the Irish case for derogation. It contrasts completely with what the Minister told me in reply to a question in the Dáil yesterday. I was told that until the directive is implemented, there can be no talk of a derogation and that it will be dealt with after implementation. This is the same as saying, "Live, horse, and you will get grass." There is no use taking the chance that we will be able to discuss a derogation after implementing the directive.

Mr. Walshe, in comparing the figures in his report, stated the Dutch generate 307 kg of organic nitrogen per hectare and the Belgians 187 kg per hectare, while we generate 110 kg per hectare. Why is there such a discrepancy, considering that the Dutch and Belgians may have more tillage land than us and bearing in mind that our percentage of grassland is very high and that it retains nitrates? Are we trying to be better Europeans than the Dutch and Belgians and are we trying to impress Europe? We have the same problem with the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005, which is now on Committee Stage, in that the fines to which Ireland will be subject will be much heavier than those to which the other countries will be subject.

Mr. Walshe

I believe Teagasc will present the information to the Minister next week. The Minister of State said in reply to Deputy McCormack's question last night that he will look at whatever figures are produced. This is a welcome step forward.

I agree totally with Deputy McCormack that the derogation is a case of saying, "Live, horse, and you will get grass". Far too much emphasis is being put on the derogation by the various Departments. It will not be any good to anybody in this country if we do not get the base directive and action plan correct in the first place. The derogation will allow farmers to spread the extra manure from the extra animals but they will not be able to have the extra animals if they cannot spread chemical fertiliser in the first place. The derogation will be useless in this regard.

We are trying to be especially good boys in Europe. The Dutch will never achieve our present phosphorus level. They have until 2015 to achieve it but it is openly admitted that they will not succeed.

As the members know, we have a grass-based industry. Efforts are being made to apply the same directive as is being applied in Greece, Finland and Sweden. In Greece there is no growth for six months of the year because of the heat and in Finland and Sweden there is no growth for six months of the year because of the cold. We have growth for practically 12 months of the year because of our temperate climate. It is not possible to apply the directive here in the same way as it is applied elsewhere.

In Holland, the water table is only a few inches under the soil. Circumstances are totally different in Ireland, yet Dutch farming is not being affected as badly by its action plan as Irish farming. Denmark has the same level of stock as Ireland but Danish agriculture is not grass-based. It is tillage-based and the animals are kept indoors. If farmers in Ireland were to move to that type of industry, they could use much higher levels of nutrients, to the detriment of water quality.

There is no acceptance by anybody and the arguments have not been made strongly enough on our behalf that our agriculture is environmentally friendly and way ahead of what obtains in most other European countries.

Deputy Connolly

There are two matters to be considered, the first of which is the breakdown of relationships in Teagasc and the second of which is partnership. To what extent has the IFA been in touch with its members at grassroots level in respect of its pulling out of consultations with two very important bodies? I can possibly understand why it pulled out of consultations with Teagasc. The IFA also pulled out of the partnership process. What does the organisation feel it can achieve by pulling out of both sets of consultations?

Mr. Walshe stated we are the good boys of Europe. One will note that there are great differences in how health and safety regulations are applied throughout Europe. What are Mr. Walshe's comments on this?

There is confusion among intensive farmers. How will the present proposals affect them, particularly in Cavan and Monaghan, where the pig, chicken, turkey and mushroom industries are significant? These industries are interdependent, in that the mushroom compost is used to grow grain which is eaten by the pigs. Are the directives liable to cause as much gloom as expected? If the directives are implemented, all the intensive farming industries will be under considerable pressure. What are Mr. Walshe's views on this?

Given that we are concerned about chicken litter, why are we still importing it from Northern Ireland?

Mr. Walshe

On the question of pulling out of the partnership process and consultations with Teagasc, the IFA has the full support of its members. I have noted this at meetings around the country. I attended the AGM of the Clare IFA county executive the night before last and a couple of hundred people were in attendance, including Senator Dooley, who can verify what I am saying. After I made my presentation, which covered a range of topics, including livestock, dairying, the nitrates directive and the sugar beet industry, I answered questions from the floor for an hour and a half. Every question was on the nitrates directive and there were only two comments on other issues, one on BSE testing and the other on plastics collection. However, the two individuals who made these comments mentioned the nitrates directive first. This reflects the feeling on the ground, including that of members from branches throughout County Clare.

There was nothing the Government could offer us through partnership that would compensate farmers for the loss they are experiencing. The last thing I wanted was to raise the nitrates directive in the partnership talks — I wanted it sorted out beforehand if at all possible. Even if we manage to have the nitrates directive implemented sensibly, we will be no further forward. All we can do is continue to farm as we have been told to by Teagasc for the last number of years. This achieves nothing. I am as disappointed as anyone but the Department of Agriculture and Food left me with no option last week when it decided to move ahead with the implementation of the directive while we were supposed to be discussing it at the partnership negotiations. I felt let down.

No one can argue with the implementation of regulations on health or safety but I am asking that Departments be clear that implementation should not affect the commercial sector. It is in our interests as much as anyone else's that good health and safety regulations should be in place but this is over the top and it will do nothing to improve water quality.

We have all seen the differing implementation of regulations abroad. As farmers we were prepared to invest in improving quality and traceability. The amount of produce being imported without the safety of traceability and quality control is a bone of contention that we might want to discuss in future.

A pig farmer neighbour of mine in County Laois has just spent €500,000 building a new dry sow house to comply with an animal welfare regulation at European level. He phoned me yesterday, having just finished the building this week to comply with a regulation. What will he have to spend to comply with the next regulation and the one after that? Will he be able to farm for the next ten years without having to spend more and more money? This one building cost €500,000. It is state of the art in terms of current regulations, but he is now hearing about the nitrates directive and emissions directives coming up and he is getting fed up. He is a young man who just wants to produce quality pig meat in Ireland.

Mr. Michael Maguire

Our major fear is that we have overcome many obstacles before but we see no way out of here. We have been campaigning intensively on this for six months and to date we feel it is still up in the air. We have spent time coming to meetings in Dublin, and will continue to do so until we get a resolution.

Mr. Jim Devlin

Deputies and Senators have asked about implementation across Europe and the effect it has had. The effects on farming will be visible in the intensive livestock sector, where they are dramatic and immediate. There is an absolute requirement for co-operation between pig and poultry and neighbouring farmers. Neighbouring farmers will be restricted as to the level of nutrients allowed on their land and will not be able to accept manure as fertiliser from neighbouring pig and poultry farmers. Effectively their operations will cease if they cannot find a safe receptacle. That is an immediate effect. On less intensively farmed REPS farms on poor land, restrictions on fertilisers are at least as dramatic as they are at the upper end of the dairy sector.

Across Europe there is a broad spectrum, with varying degrees of implementation. The British and other member states have gone one way, designating insignificant areas of land and implementing a reasonable action programme that people can understand. Other countries have bigger issues and heavily regulated agricultural industries. Denmark and Holland have highly regulated agriculture but they have more significant issues.

The approach to regulation in Ireland is at the extreme end of the spectrum in terms of detail and complexity. I defy anyone in this room to work out what the fertiliser would be for an individual farm; he would need a PhD in agronomy to work it out. Three or four separate steps must be taken to work out the figure. The combination of limits is also extreme. There are 16 to 18 different stocking rates, with a different limit for each. There are many hundreds of combinations of nitrogen and phosphorus.

Agricultural recommendations are a best estimate, a guess based on experience of what a crop response might be for a given level of application of fertiliser. That can vary widely in response in a given year, farm or even a field. Guidelines allow farmers to interpret and apply them to their individual circumstances with advice from an expert. This takes general guidance and inappropriately inserts it into legislation so that people who are above the limits are subject to criminal prosecution.

Senator Dardis

I welcome the IFA and thank the delegation for coming to explain the position. I accept this is a serious situation and I welcome Mr. Walshe's statement that the nitrates directive is necessary.

It is unfortunate that charges have been laid against Teagasc and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government when they are not here to defend themselves. We had a contentious debate here on genetically modified crops and the other agencies were here to rebut the argument.

Chairman

They were all invited.

Senator Dardis

I still stick to the point that it is unfortunate they are not here.

I declare two interests in this. I am a retired farmer and I am an angler, both of which colour my perspective. As a tillage farmer, I find it unfortunate that 150 people turned up in Carlow for a conference that did not take place. That does not help. Over the years Teagasc has contributed immeasurably to the welfare of agriculture in this State. I would not have been able to farm to the level I did without the advice and the expertise of the highest level that it offered.

I accept the generality of everything that has been said today. The levels here are moderate compared to other countries such as Holland and Denmark. The generality is not the problem, however; the particular is the problem, the levels at which the potential for pollution arises. There was a point where phosphorus was at such a low level that there was phosphorosis in cattle here. The advisory service told us to put out the basic slag and phosphorus levels increased to the point that they became luxuriant. There was then advice to reduce the levels.

One part per billion of phosphorus in a lake could cause eutrophication. Many years ago I went to Cavan to meet a prominent pig farmer and he said if he had enough time he would reclaim Lough Sheelin because he would put enough slurry into it. I am not suggesting for a moment that most farmers would take that view but there are cowboys, as there are in any industry. When I travelled to County Kerry on a wet January day last year, I was surprised to see slurry being spread in the pouring rain. The nitrogen must go somewhere but it does not go into the soil in those conditions. It is locked up by winter cereals but in fallow ground is released because of our temperatures. The problems experienced in some of the rivers in the tillage area of County Carlow are due to the nature of farming, not the level of intensity of nitrogen used.

My problem arises in regard to the particular, not the general principle, which I accept. Points have been made about traceability and quality. At this committee I have asked how we can compete with countries which, for example, are allowed to use growth hormones in cattle because there is no traceability. This presents a real problem for our competitiveness. I have also raised the issue at the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny, which deals with aspects of this problem.

Some of the arguments made about the nitrates directive recall those made about hormones. Certain anabolic steroids are safe in cattle but that does not matter. If the consumer wants cattle free of anabolic steroids, that is what the consumer gets. A statement was made here to the effect that farmers had a right to privacy and their good name. There is, however, also the matter of the common good, of which the committee is aware.

Mr. Walshe said, "They should not be subjected to a plethora of inspectors descending on them without justification exercising powers they should not hold." What is the evidence for this statement?

The question of how other countries are managing has been answered. Are the references to water quality standards for nitrogen only or do they cover phosphate? For example, there is a problem with e.coli. While I am not suggesting farmers are responsible for this, I am not clear on what these standards define.

I accept that local authorities are the biggest polluters of our waterways but they are exempt under legislation.

Chairman

The IFA might agree with that statement.

Senator Dardis

We continue to allow phosphates to be used in household detergents.

Mr. Walshe

I would be the first to agree with Senator Dardis's point about Teagasc. It has been very important to me and conducted many trials on my farm. I would not be where I am in farming but for the work done in places such as Moorepark.

I have referred to the management of Teagasc and the way it has handled this debacle from day one. If management had confined itself to science, we would not be in this situation. Instead, it became involved in political shenanigans on this issue, which was wrong. It did not take into account production and its effect on agriculture.

Chairman

That is a very important point. What happened in the management of Teagasc and the Department? Mr. Walshe said farmers had been misled but what exactly is the IFA's charge against the people concerned?

Mr. Walshe

As I stated, management of Teagasc admitted publicly that the effect on agricultural production and economics had not been taken into account in the advice given to the Government. The scientists further down the line have played an important role in agriculture during the years and I agree with Senator Dardis's point in that respect. This situation, however, was mishandled and the arguments we are presenting today were not presented to the various Departments in drawing up the action plan.

Municipal sewage causes the greatest phosphorus pollution in our waterways. I am not a scientist and cannot prove this but, as a farmer, Senator Dardis knows that phosphorus is locked in the top two inches of soil. I can show the committee research findings from Sweden, which portrays itself as one of the most environment-conscious countries in the world.

Senator Dardis

I want to point the finger at one other place, namely, Coillte. Phosphorus is locked in mineral soils, not peat soils.

Mr. Walshe

I cannot deny that farmers sometimes spread slurry in wet weather. They should not do so. This regulation, however, will encourage that activity more because it applies dates by which one cannot farm. The first date on which a farmer can legally spread slurry is 12 January. It may happen that in a small village the local school is surrounded by five or six farms where slurry has been stored. There might be good weather before that date when farmers could spread slurry but they will be forced to go out on the one day specified.

Chairman

That is the biggest complaint from farmers.

Mr. Walshe

Everybody will be forced to go out on the same day and there will be complaints all round. Schools will be closed because parents will not allow their children to attend. This will be an issue caused by the directive. Slurry should not be spread in wet weather. Proper climatic conditions should be prescribed, rather than dates. I am not making an argument about farms.

Senator Dardis

It concerns access to farms which inspectors can enter without a warrant under the hormone regulations.

Mr. Walshe

Mr. Devlin can deal with that matter.

Senator Dardis

The bottom line is that the environment is of extreme value to us as an exporting food country.

Mr. Walshe

I accept that; the IFA accepted the point about hormones years ago. The consumer is being conned on this issue. The consumer expects to buy meat without hormones in the supermarket but that is not the case because the European Union allows imports from countries which allow them to be used. We only seek fair play for our product in the marketplace. Food labelling has frequently been promised but has not been provided for. There was a report in the Sunday Independent on the issue.

Mr. Devlin will respond to the points raised about standards and access to farms.

Deputy Hogan

I welcome the IFA delegation and congratulate Mr. Walshe on his recent election as president. This is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate him publicly.

It appears many took their eyes off the ball when this issue arose, probably because when canvassing was under way there was a great deal of activity in the undergrowth about which we are only now learning. Common sense is required. I am surprised that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, got it so badly wrong because he usually has an answer for everything.

Did the board of Teagasc approve the original Teagasc scientific advice?

Mr. Walshe

It was not allowed to see it. That was the initial mistake. The director and chairman of Teagasc told the board that they treated the Government as a client and the board was not entitled to see the advice. We saw some of it only after I was interviewed on the "Pat Kenny Show".

Deputy Hogan

I ask the question because the IFA is represented on the board.

Mr. Walshe

That is correct.

Deputy Hogan

It is important that everybody should know that the board did not receive or approve the original advice. From where did the pressure come to have an intensive regime in place here at variance with those in place in all other EU member states? I am told by people in Brussels that Ireland is trying to implement a scheme that they have never looked for and that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is promoting a regime that is far more stringent than is required. We blame the Eurocrats for a lot, but they do not want the directive to go this far. Where is the common sense in that? Where is the pressure coming from for the implementation of the scheme?

Much play has been made about partnership over the years. In what way was the IFA involved as a partner in the formulation of this proposal? Was the IFA engaged by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, or the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan? I understand Deputy Coughlan is held in high regard by the farming sector and the sector has had a lot of engagement with both Ministers over many years, but what engagement took place on the implementation of the directive? If there was no engagement, how did the decision get through Cabinet?

Has the IFA also examined the implications of the rainwater directive? If people think the nitrates directive is a problem, when the rainwater directive is introduced they will know all about the matters that Senator Dardis mentioned, such as intensive agriculture, septic tanks, local authority pollution and other recurring issues, which I am glad to see mentioned in Mr. Walshe's submission.

Mr. Walshe

I ask Mr. Devlin to address some of those questions. As I mentioned, farmers are worried about further directives coming down the line. They are fed up with the way in which the goalposts keep moving.

Mr. Devlin

The precise detail on the implementation of the nitrates directive in Ireland was not available until 7 October last year, when the first consultation draft containing the proposed fertiliser limits was published. That total fertiliser limits for nitrates and phosphates would come into force had been flagged for some time, but the complex details were not available until 7 October. Furthermore, the limits were made more restrictive in the final regulations, especially in the discounting of maximum phosphorus levels to take account of concentrated feed to livestock. In the last days before the regulations were signed a number of changes were made to which no one had been privy.

I can confirm for Deputy Hogan that we had a high level of interaction on the implementation of the directive for a number of years, but a feature of that interaction was that for every step forward there would be a number of steps back.

Deputy Hogan

Whom did the IFA meet?

Mr. Devlin

We met representatives, mainly of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government but also of the Department of Agriculture and Food. At various stages we received clear information to the effect that positive progress was being made and a workable, sensible solution could be achieved but the subsequent written text of the proposals did not support the impression that had been given. A major issue is that, from the farming perspective, between October and early December when the regulations were signed the detail on key issues took a very negative turn.

Chairman

When the IFA saw those written details, despite the positive meetings that had taken place, did the association point out that the proposals went way above and beyond what the EU directive called for?

Mr. Devlin

Absolutely. Teagasc also had a role in the matter. Having been asked repeatedly whether it was concerned about the proposed levels, Teagasc communicated to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government prior to the signing of the regulations that it had a serious problem with them. However, we felt that Teagasc could have done that a bit earlier and a bit more forcefully. That was one of our key concerns.

In response to Senator Dardis's point about authorised officers, I should explain that our submission makes that point because the regulations contain about five pages under Article 25 dealing with authorised officers, none of which appeared in the consultation document published on 7 October. The draft regulations referred to the Local Government (Water Pollution) Acts 1977 and 1990 but they included none of that detail, which appeared without notice in the final document signed. The final regulations grant very strong powers to a range of individuals who are not required to hold any particular qualifications in agriculture. Obviously the IFA objects to that in the strongest possible terms.

Senator Ormonde

I am pleased to participate in the debate this morning. I congratulate Mr. Walshe on his election, although he may have taken his eye off the ball when he was getting himself elected.

Not being knowledgeable about the details into which people have gone this morning, I want to talk about the fundamental issues that I have written down. First, the matter seems to have been mishandled. As Deputy McCormack said, what the IFA has told us today and what the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, told the Dáil just does not add up. I may have missed that point, but there seems to be some confusion about the directive.

Other members have spoken of the need to strike the right balance between agriculture and the environment so that we improve water quality while allowing farmers flexibility in the administration of the nitrates directive. That issue sticks in my mind because it seems the current implementation of the directive is too strict and farmers need to implement it according to their own plan.

That brings me on to the people who will be authorised to monitor the regulations. However, how could we have authorised people to monitor the implementation of the directive if farmers are to implement it according to their own plan? I think Mr. Walshe stated that individual farmers should be left to work out the details.

I believe the issue can be resolved. I cannot understand why the IFA does not sit around the table with Teagasc — which seems to be the real culprit in this — and others, including the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and perhaps some of the people from Europe who drafted the directive. People could then compare the implementation of the directive in European countries with different climates. It seems to be less stringently enforced in other European countries than is the case in Ireland.

I am very confused but I am interested in the debate and I am pleased to be here to listen to it. There is confusion about the directive, which seems to have been totally mishandled, but everybody has a role in getting it right. It must be possible to sort it out. What are the delegation's views on that?

Mr. Walshe

Senator Ormonde suggests I took my eye off the ball but, although it is true I was not centrally involved in the issue while I was attempting to get elected as president, the then president John Dillon had his eye very much on the ball and lobbied on the issue continually. As Mr. Devlin pointed out a few moments ago, Dr. Seamus Crosse from Teagasc stated that he was of the opinion that it was not safe to use those figures in legislation. He said that before an Oireachtas committee last week. As Mr. Devlin said, Teagasc was a bit late in highlighting its concerns and could have voiced them more strongly. We would much prefer it if Teagasc had been a bit stronger on the issue, but it appears to be a bit stronger now.

Senator Ormonde is quite correct to say that all we need is flexibility. I do not expect farmers to be allowed to work this out on their own. I am quite prepared to say that they should work it out in conjunction with advice from Teagasc, depending on how the farmer chooses, either through a private consultant or through a Teagasc adviser. The only thing that we have ever asked of Teagasc is that it put the science on the table. Teagasc is supposed to be a scientific body. When the ESRI issued its opinions on public service pay at the start of the partnership talks the week before last, it provided the inflation figures that it produces regularly. Teagasc's actions can be likened to the ESRI producing spurious inflation figures, which thankfully — to my knowledge at least — the ESRI has never produced. Teagasc should not do anything like that either. Teagasc should put the science on the table so that it can be used both by farmers and by the Government. I believe we can work this out.

I would like Teagasc to state what level of nitrogen can be spread without damage being done to water quality. At that level, it will not be damaging to water quality. The same is true of phosphorus. That should be possible, particularly in our grass-based industry and with our climate. We have a growing plant practically 12 months of the year that is capable of taking up nutrients. That is where our action plan must differ from those of other European countries. The only places similar to Ireland may be parts of the UK and France. The rest of Europe lacks the temperate climate.

I do not know if there is anything else to mention. Perhaps Mr. O'Keeffe would like to add something.

Mr. Pat O’Keeffe

I have only a few comments. Senator Dardis mentioned inspectors. As a pig farmer and licence-holder, I have a rake of people from competent authorities coming to us from the Department of Agriculture and Food, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and local authorities. Officials from Cork County Council will be monitoring farmers from now on.

Senator Dardis

Senator Quinn will have the same in his business.

Mr. O’Keeffe

There is no prior notice. These people can walk in. We are family-run farm businesses, not commercial operations. We deal with the regulations.

Senator Quinn

We all have to live with that in every business. We may not like it, but we live with it.

Mr. O’Keeffe

It is a cost and it tightens one's margins on the day.

Teagasc was taken up a cul-de-sac by the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Its senior executives have much to answer for to the farming community. Some 80% of the Teagasc budget is from the Government, with only 15% from farmers. We must keep farming. Farmers adapt to modern standards every day, as the challenges are put before us.

On the nitrates directive, we have been here for 14 or 15 years. As a farming lobby, we were not those who stopped the directive coming in; it was successive Governments, the Department of Agriculture and Food, and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. It has been said that Pádraig Walshe was electioneering. The committee members are all elected representatives, and when they put themselves forward for election they do not take their eyes off the ball either. The rest of us were not doing so.

I have visited successive Ministers, including the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, two years ago. We heard no more from him. I visited the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, last March in the Department. Mr. Michael Maguire was with me that day. I also visited the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, in County Wicklow. When I arrived there from County Cork with other pig farmers, he had gone to the funeral mass for the Pope in Phoenix Park, leaving us high and dry. That is how much he thought of the pig industry. He says that pig men came to him only at the last minute, but we were far ahead in this matter. We have had numerous meetings with him.

Farmers are compliant and we are prepared to accept the challenges. The Dutch and Danes are on their third action programme regarding the nitrates directive. Perhaps we are coming from behind, but there is no point in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government telling Teagasc to produce figures to suit it, since it has made a commitment to Brussels. I do not know why we have to listen to Brussels all the time. We have our own statutory instruments to transpose the directives into Irish law, and that is it. Are we going a little over the top altogether listening to our European partners?

Senator Dardis

Do farmers not want the money either?

Mr. O’Keeffe

I am not getting any money. I am a pig farmer. With the WTO, I face all the challenges of Brazil, Argentina, Canada and everything else.

Senator Dardis

I know that Mr. O'Keeffe is working in a free market.

Mr. O’Keeffe

Yes, I am in a free market. Last year I happened to be in the Catalan region of Spain, which is a tourist destination. Some 80% of pigs and livestock are produced there, and the same nitrates law is not in operation there.

The economy is growing at 4% per annum, and 60,000 to 80,000 houses are being built every year. More people are coming to the country every day and there are fewer farmers. Their stock numbers are falling. Members of the committee can get the statistics from Bord Bia. In Cork, there is now a system whereby every animal is recorded, even pigs. We are being targeted more harshly than need be.

I would also say that pig farmers have been segregated. Some 102 of us are licence-holders. We have until 2007 to get our house in order and change. Deputy Connolly has mentioned the small family producer in County Cavan. In west Cork, they have had to have their house in order since 1 February 2006. How can one expect a small family operation to do that, when labour is an issue on the farm?

Deputy Kirk

I join members in welcoming the delegation. This is an opportunity for us to congratulate Pádraig Walshe on his election as president of the IFA, and we wish him well over the next few years. No doubt he faces quite a challenging period as far as the industry is concerned.

The nitrates directive has been knocking around for some time. It initially appeared on the horizon in the early 1990s and has been in gestation since. We have now reached the stage when the issue of confronting its implications is faced by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. On the other hand, the Department of Agriculture and Food has responsibility for the issue of managing food production and the agriculture industry as a whole. In effect, one has two different Departments that may have different agendas on the issue.

Certain questions in that regard might be helpful. In response to a previous question, the observation was made that the comparison of the types of regime that the directive will see transposed into national legislation might vary from one state to another. The question was raised as to why we should accept that. The IFA has been pursuing this issue and lobbying very vigorously on it. What level of consultation, if any, has there been with representative farming organisations in other member states? Have notes been compared and the difference between the implications of transposition here and, for instance, in Holland, quantified? Given the intensity of the pig industry in Holland, the implications for the Dutch are quite significant. The pig industry here is concentrated in east Cork and Deputy Connolly's area in Cavan-Monaghan. There are profound implications for this industry. Getting farm waste beyond those confined geographical areas is a great challenge.

Questions in the Community generally concerning how matters are handled in other member states are fairly important. There will be a variation in the intensity of farming and the methods that they have in other places. However, there is a commonality about the issue in the Community. We cannot say that it is not relevant to the Dutch to the same extent. It may be more relevant to them than to the Irish. It has profound implications for everyone.

As we know, the proposal is that the initial threshold per hectare be 170 kg. The indications are that the Commission will look favourably at a derogation with a threshold of 250 kg. What threshold can the industry live with here, or should we not have one at all? It is important to establish exactly what the delegation's position is in that regard, since it would clearly be very helpful to those who are pursuing the issue with Departments.

Mr. Walshe

I thank Deputy Kirk for his earlier kind comments. Ultimately, we are not scientists. From my experience of farming, 170 kg is a very low level. One is really talking about two cows per hectare, which is 0.8 of a cow per acre. That is a very low level of intensity. For years I have stocked at 0.8 of an acre per cow and have been running a pretty intensive operation at that level. I contend that I am not damaging the environment and that any nutrients I put on are being taken off in the crop of grass that is grown, which is put through the animals.

Senator Dardis

There would not be many above 250 kg.

Mr. Walshe

No, and the figure of 210 kg refers to the cow per acre ratio. That is the highest level of nitrogen allowed under what is being proposed. In terms of a derogation, if it works, it will be for only three or four years and then we will be back to the 170 kg level again. This is really crippling for people who have pushed the boat out over the last few years and driven ahead. They have made the investment in the industry. These are people who created milk quotas before they were even introduced in Ireland. They pushed the boat out as regards suckler cows, for example, since there was such a stipulation regarding milk quotas. Farmers in Cavan-Monaghan, to whom the Deputy has referred, have smaller farm units and set up farmyard enterprises involving pigs, poultry and mushrooms. Such farmers are relatively heavily stocked, given their holdings. These are the people who have driven production in agriculture for the last 30 or 40 years.

There have been problems in the past. It is as much in the interest of farmers as anybody else to have a clean environment and good water quality. I do not want to suggest the IFA supports any level of farming activity that will be detrimental to water quality or the environment. I am sure my colleagues will unanimously agree with me on that. None of us wants anything like that. If the scientists can demonstrate that any of our activity is detrimental to the environment, we will have to change what we are doing. However, I do not believe any scientist has shown us that as yet, and that is all I want Teagasc to do. I believe that what the vast majority of farmers are doing at the moment is above board. Inevitably, there is a bad apple in every barrel and I do not condone anybody who is deliberately damaging the environment, nor will I. However, what the vast majority are doing does not damage the environment. We just want to continue to do what we have been educated to do over the years. This directive is asking us to farm with at least one arm tied behind our backs because for years now we have been unable to use the tools of our trade.

An analogy was made with supermarkets earlier, the sector in which Senator Quinn is involved. It is as if Senator Quinn was being asked to leave the top row of shelves empty because they could not be used. There is no common sense in such an approach as far as the IFA is concerned. That is the analogy I use to depict how most farmers see this.

We are being asked to farm at a level that provides no incentives to young people. If there was more land available to me, I would probably be better off at the rate of one cow per acre. It was much cheaper, however, for me to push the boat out in terms of putting on the extra nutrients to carry more animals on the land I had. Buying land is not an option, as the committee knows. Leasing land next door to me to walk cows on to was not an option either. These are the everyday decisions that farmers face.

Mr. Devlin

There is a link between derogation and fertilised consumption. We have always promoted a hierarchy of nutrients that people should use. Pig manure and other manures are fertilisers. That has been accepted by the European Court of Justice. We need to retain the scope for that valuable material to be used on farms to replace chemical fertiliser to the greatest possible extent. That is why it is critical, particularly in the context of derogation. We need a derogation of up to 350 kg of organic nitrogen. Part of the reason is to replace chemical fertiliser with valuable manure available locally from pig and poultry farms.

Our fertiliser consumption has been falling consistently, particularly as regards phosphorus, which has declined from a peak of over 90,000 tonnes in the early 1970s to a current level of around 40,000 tonnes. Our nitrogen levels have not come down to the same extent but are falling. They have been reducing since the late 1990s. There is no desire among farmers to use fertilisers to a greater extent than required.

Senator Dardis

This has to do with the economics of the issue, not the science of it. Is it not the case that because of the pressure on the product price, the marginal kilogram of nitrogen is falling all the time? In other words, some of these levels are rapidly being approached.

Mr. Walshe

The economics of farming are changing all the time, as the Senator knows. The price we get for our product is dropping and the cost of fertilisers and other inputs is increasing. However, if these limits are included in legislation and the economics ever change again, we are strapped.

Senator Dardis

Is the top level coming down in Mr. Walshe's farming practice or is he using much——

Mr. Walshe

It has come down from what I was doing ten years ago.

Mr. Colm McDonnell

I am a user of organic fertiliser from the chicken industry. A survey was carried out some years ago by UCD on the Lyons Estate into the amount of nitrogen that is absorbed by a growing plant. The figure is something in the region of 210 kg per hectare of safe nitrogen. That survey was carried out for the then Department of Agriculture and to my knowledge it has not been referred to on this issue.

Chairman

Has Mr. McDonnell any idea why not?

Mr. McDonnell

I have no idea.

Senator Dardis

There is a scientific reason.

Mr. McDonnell

It is a scientific study.

Senator Dardis

One cannot predict what the soil will release, only what one is applying in the bag. However, there are large variations in what the soil will release from season to season, depending on temperature and rainfall.

Mr. McDonnell

I have been using pig and poultry manure from the Cavan-Monaghan area and have been taking it for a number of years. However, since the directive came in, I cannot take it anymore. The reason is that the nitrogen levels are so low, as categorised in the tables, and I cannot afford to take organic fertiliser anymore. This includes waste from county councils, supermarkets, industry or wherever. A usual one, "category 3", is now being made available to tillage farms but we are unable to use it. The reason is that we will not be able to grow wheat at the category we have been pushed into. I am told that this has existed for a number of years and it is taken from the Teagasc Green Book. What that contains, however, has never been applied by Teagasc on the ground. Teagasc advisers on the ground, one of whom I use, have never once applied that. My adviser applies it to the crop as it is needed. We do not spread nitrogen willy-nilly because it is far too expensive. We apply it as the crop requires it. Weather conditions etc. all have a bearing on the amount of nitrogen that is used. We use exactly what the crop requires. High grain yields have been obtained continually in Ireland because of the moist climate. We absorb more nitrogen, however, because of the moist climate. We cannot be compared to the rest of Europe in this regard. However, if it is stopped, the pig and poultry industry will go and then there will be no market for our grain.

Also the sludge industry will disappear. I do not know where it will go, but it will not come out on tillage farms.

Senator Quinn

I congratulate Mr. Walshe on his election and the Irish Farmers' Association on its great success in being able to stop this directive. Ireland is isolated as the only country in Europe that has not passed the directive. This may be due to the strength of the Irish Farmers' Association or to political reluctance to confront the farmers. However, I do not hear the voice of water drinkers in this debate, those of us who represent 100% of the population who drink water. I am taking Mr. Walshe's own figures when he spoke about 30% of rivers and 15% of lakes not being in a satisfactory condition, although he phrased it the other way around, by saying 70% of rivers were in a satisfactory condition. The figures published yesterday in Britain show that the level of drinking-water purity there is far ahead of that here. The representative of water drinkers in Ireland is not being heard and the power of the farming community has been able to delay implementation of the directive.

The citizens of Ireland are being held to ransom by the IFA. I got a greater jolt last week when the farmers' representatives walked out of the social partnership talks. Who is representing the citizens? I thought it was the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, whom I greatly admire. Yesterday, he said he was seeking the best solution for farmers. That is not his job. His job is to seek the best solution for the environment and the citizens of Ireland. This is damaging to Mr. Walshe and what he wants to do, because the IFA is holding the rest of the country to ransom. It has walked out of the social partnership talks and, as far as I can gather, is now boycotting Teagasc meetings. The voice of those who want to drink fresh water — that is, everyone in the country, including Mr. Walshe's own family — is being ignored. I think I am correct in stating this is the only country that has not implemented the directive. We are not implementing it because of the reluctance of farmers to do so and they are holding the citizens of Ireland to ransom. These are tough words but I am doing so on purpose because I do not hear that voice. The IFA is a very good lobby group but I do not hear the voice of the citizens of Ireland, even though the directive is aimed at protecting them.

Chairman

A newspaper editorial I have in front of me states farmers deserve sympathy and should receive State aid to help them work in a more environmentally friendly fashion. It goes on to state they have received plenty of warnings and that these water protection measures have been in the offing for 15 years. It further states the Government has a duty to protect the public interest and that the bottom line is that agriculture must clean up its act. Like Senator Quinn, I may be playing devil's advocate but that issue must be addressed also.

Mr. Walshe

As I stated, it is in our interest, as it is in everyone else's, to have clean water. We are the biggest users of water in rural Ireland. We are water drinkers and consumers as much as anyone else. I do not know why this has taken so long. The directive is in place and we cannot ignore it. It is not my fault that it has not been implemented before now. The over-stringent way in which it is being implemented is the reason we are where we are. What is being implemented in the action plan will prove detrimental to, rather than improve, water quality. We have a grass-based industry which is good at utilising nutrients.

The figures quoted were related to river channels. A number of people around the room have agreed with me that the main source of the problem in river channels is municipal sewage, not agriculture. When the EPA cannot find a point source, it is put down to a land effect. The assumption is automatically made that agriculture is the source. I contend that it is not.

Senator Quinn

I take the point that agriculture is not the only source, that there are other factors. However, it seems it has been identified that agriculture is the polluter. This is an effort to clean up our water supply. It is not the total solution but one of the efforts being made. Unless we manage to do something about the matter, we are burying our heads in the sand.

Mr. Walshe

One of the figures included in my presentation was that 96.4% of drinking water was acceptable to all prescribed standards. That was included in a document I received last week.

Senator Quinn

The figure in Britain is over 99%. We are way behind Britain in that respect.

Mr. Walshe

I was presented with this document by the Taoiseach last week.

Mr. Devlin

Lest there be any confusion, we have a nitrates action programme in place. We will have a detailed comprehensive regulation in place from 1 February. I have a copy here if anyone wants to pursue it. The IFA has major concerns with many of the measures contained in it, especially those that will cost farmers a lot of money. We question the need for some of them, especially those to do with storage, closed periods, ground weather conditions and land spraying. There is much in the document that is currently provided for in the law of the land.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government deferred implementation of one part of a very comprehensive regulation that dealt with fertiliser limits for nitrogen and phosphorus. That is a crucial issue in terms of the competitiveness and livelihoods of farm families and one on which the IFA has been focusing. The IFA does not take particular pride in the action it has had to take but the incomes of farm families are under threat as a result of the directive. The scientific basis of its justification is highly questionable. That is why we are taking this action.

Deputy Connolly

The IFA does not accept the Teagasc figures. Would the delegates have any idea where the figures came from?

Mr. Walshe

We accept them as guidelines but they are not fit for inclusion in legislation. They are agronomic figures that have been presented and worked out during the years as guidelines for farmers in growing crops. Teagasc's advice can vary. Weather conditions are very variable. Production levels of grass alone can vary by 25% from one year to the next with the same application of nutrients. However, there is no flexibility in the application of these agronomic figures. That does not make sense.

Senator Dardis

Is Mr. Walshe saying the only basis for the submitted figures is the agronomic advice given to farmers, not the scientific levels at which nutrients would cause a problem?

Mr. Walshe

I believe so.

Mr. Devlin

Teagasc has better agronomic fertiliser advice than us. It is commonly referred to as the Green Book and consists of guidance and estimates for interpretation by farmers and their advisers. This advice has been taken and restricted in a number of instances. However, precise detail has been added to it which was never intended. It is being incorporated into legislation. I have the tables with me.

Senator Dardis

This is the book Mr.McDonald would use if he was going to spread fertiliser on his crops.

Mr. Devlin

Part of the problem with Teagasc's fertiliser recommendations is that in too many instances the recommendations are not being adhered to at farm level by advisers. There is a soil nitrogen index system which acts as a serious disincentive in taking organic fertilisers from other farms. The amount of additional chemical fertiliser to be applied is discounted. The logical home for pig and poultry manure, if it is feasible to transport it, is a tillage holding. However, the actual operation of the nitrates index system rules out many tillage holdings. Mr. McDonnell, if he wants to earn a living, cannot afford to take pig manure because he would be overly restricted with regard to nitrogen levels.

Chairman

If the figures coming from Teagasc and the Departments are not acceptable to the IFA in the next couple of days, where does the IFA go from here?

Mr. Walshe

We will have to decide that as we go along. I would be hopeful that the scientists in Teagasc will produce figures which will be much more acceptable. Maximum ceilings which are deemed safe for water quality and the environment should apply. Farmers should follow the advice of Teagasc or their consultants at different stocking levels below these ceilings. There is no need for the proposed level of detail in legislation. Also, there should be flexibility with regard to the weather and practical farming situations in which farmers will find themselves.

Mr. O’Keeffe

To reply to Senator Dardis, most of my IPC licensed customer farmers were receiving Teagasc advice in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s. IPC licensed customer farmers have seen the permitted level of phosphorus reducing all the time. The Teagasc advice in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s changed constantly. My customer farmers cannot reduce the level of phosphorus further because they will not get the yield of crop they need and because climatic conditions are changing.

To reply to Senator Quinn with regard to the citizens of the State, I go to the park on a Sunday with my wife and family. That park has a free supply of tap water, whereas visitors to other countries around the world are advised to buy bottled water. As Senator Quinn is in the supermarket business, I think he would rather see us buying bottled water than drinking from the tap. Given the society we live in and the many hotels in Dublin, if tap water was not safe to drink, hotel management would have signs to warn guests not to drink it.

With regard to on-farm inspection, all farmers with dairy and pig farms are subject to a competent authority, namely, the Department of Agriculture and Food, which takes water samples from premises once a year.

Senator Quinn

The purchase of water is market-driven. I did not believe anybody would buy bottled water. They did not do it 20 years ago. The reason they buy it is that they do not have confidence in the water supply.

Mr. O’Keeffe

It is a trend or a fad among the young to carry bottled water.

Mr. Walshe

I thank the members of the committee for inviting us and for their challenging comments. It is important that we achieve sensible implementation of the directive. It is already in legislation. I would appreciate the support of the committee in the attempt to have the Minister reconsider the proposed nitrogen levels in the directive as well as the phosphorus levels. All farmers want is to get on with producing good, clean, safe food without damaging the environment or water quality. That is our priority and we do not want to be held up as having a different agenda.

This is a serious issue for us. Committee members may have been disappointed when the IFA pulled out of the partnership talks but I felt I had no option because the various Departments were not acting in partnership with us. There was nothing partnership could do that would compensate farmers in any way for the losses they were likely to incur as a result of the implementation of this directive, as it stood.

Chairman

We will put the submissions to the relevant Departments. I take into consideration what has been said with regard to the responsibility of Government, including the points raised by Senator Dardis. From my experience, if one wanted a case study in how not to implement an EU directive, we have it. The experience of the committee in two relatively short hearings bears that out.

It is an important point. The Government should listen to the committee. It would be the opinion of most members that this is no way to do business and no way to implement an EU directive.