Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 5 Jul 2023

Ireland's Water Quality: Discussion

An Cathaoirleach

Before we begin, I remind members and witnesses to turn off their mobile phones.

I bring it to the witnesses’ attention that when giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means witnesses will have full defence in any defamation action arising from anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair’s direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and I remind them of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to the utterances of members participating online in a committee meeting when their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. There can be no assurance with regard to participation online from outside the parliamentary precincts and members should be mindful of this when they are contributing.

The first session of today's meeting will undertake an examination of Ireland's water quality, plans for the interim review and engagement with the European Commission regarding the nitrates derogation. The committee will hear from Mr. David Flynn, principal adviser in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage's water division, and Mr. Bill Callanan, chief inspector, and Mr. Ted Massey, from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The witnesses' opening statements have been circulated to members and are taken as read. I will now allow them to make a five-minute presentation. We will then go into a question-and-answer session.

Mr. Bill Callanan

I thank the committee for devoting its time to the important topic of Ireland's water quality, plans for the interim review and engagement with the European Commission regarding the nitrates derogation. I am joined by my colleagues, Mr. Massey and Mr. Flynn.

Ireland’s water quality is in the top third of EU member states. Irish farmers are engaging in significant measures to reduce the loss of nutrients to water. However, as evidenced by EPA data, the level of nutrients in many of our waters remains too high. Last year saw the introduction of Ireland’s fifth nitrates action programme and the European Commission extension of Ireland’s nitrates derogation to cover the period 2022 to 2025. That programme brought significant changes for farmers. New measures were introduced, existing measures expanded and there is an increased focus on compliance and enforcement. These changes started to become applicable from March 2022, with further changes introduced from January of this year. Farmers have bought into these changes, and this must be recognised. We will likely see the benefits of the changes over time.

On the question of the nitrates derogation, the European Commission is not obliged to grant any member state such a derogation and to do so they must be assured the derogation will not compromise achievement of the nitrates directive’s objectives of reducing and preventing water pollution caused by agriculture. Last year Ireland secured a new derogation covering 2022 to 2025. These were very difficult negotiations, given the decline in Irish water quality, increases in fertiliser use and livestock numbers, as well as changes in Commission policy since the previous derogation was negotiated in 2017.

When we now engage with the European Commission, the 2027 water framework directive target of all water bodies having at least good ecological status is clearly on their mind. Ireland will not meet this target. Most, if not all, other EU member states will be in a similar situation regarding these targets; however, few of them are availing of a nitrates derogation. This year, Ireland is one of just three EU member states with a derogation. Belgium decided not to apply for an extension to its derogation, which expired at the end of last year, and the Netherlands is on a trajectory that will see it exit derogation at the end of 2025. The likely scenario is that, post 2025, Ireland will be one of just two EU member states seeking or in receipt of a nitrates derogation. Improving water quality will be critical to securing the derogation over the longer term.

Last week’s publication of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, report on the outcome of the Commission’s two-year water quality review puts that challenge into stark reality. This was an agreed part of the review. Ireland has engaged with the Commission to seek flexibility on this condition. Those discussions are ongoing. However, we must all recognise there is no guarantee the Commission will agree to reopen its decision.

In May, the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, established an all-of-industry agriculture water quality working group to raise awareness of water quality impacts, identify ways to further improve compliance and enforcement and identify new measures that will drive improvements in water quality. This group’s work will feed into the interim review of the nitrates action programme which must take place over the coming months. I chair that group. The EPA has significantly developed its information around targeting of measures to improve water quality.

I believe the best way we can secure the derogation, and a sustainable future for Irish farmers, is through a science-led, targeted approach where the whole industry comes together to drive improvements in water quality. At the core of this objective must be that we improve our overall quality. It is a key performance indicator on sustainability and something I believe all stakeholders are committed to.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Callanan. Usually I open up to the floor very quickly but I have a good few things to say on this subject. I am a dairy farmer. We farm on the basis of the derogation. This derogation is extremely important to the economic viability of my business. It is cutting deep.

These negotiations have been going on for a while. I am disappointed. I feel there is a view that a reduction in our derogation level is inevitable. There is a defeatist attitude in the Department. As Mr. Callanan stated, we have taken new measures in the past 12 to 18 months which are putting extra onus on derogation farmers but will bear fruit going forward. The farming independent was published yesterday. It covered the Moorepark Open Day 2023 and included a two-page spread on nitrates derogation. The headline stated any reduction in the nitrates would be absolutely disastrous for all sectors of farming, not just dairying.

It is a few short years since the abolition of quotas. Serious incentives were given to farmers and processors to increase production. To say the sky was the limit would be an understatement. Production increased rapidly. There was huge investment in processing facilities, etc., and at farm level to cater for the increased cow numbers. Dairying is the driving economic force of rural Ireland; without our vibrant dairy industry, rural Ireland would be a seriously poorer place.

If we fail to secure 250 kg/ha of organic nitrogen, it will have a serious impact on our processing industry. This point is probably overlooked in much of the debate. It will add significantly to the cost of processing milk, which will impact every dairy farmer. We could do estimates of what it will add to the cost but, conservatively, with the banding introduced this year and if we have a reduction in the organic limit, it will probably add 2 or 3 cent per litre to the cost of processing, which would seriously impact all farmers’ incomes.

I have been researching the issue and talking to many people. I will give four examples of the impact a reduction to 220 kg with the banding would have on family farmers. The first is a farmer in west Cork. I will not mention his name, although it is in front of me here. He has a family farm. He farms with his wife and children and his brother helps out. He carries a significant debt level per cow at €6,000 and has invested heavily in expanding his farm and the infrastructure on it. If banding and the reduction in the derogation come to pass, his income will be reduced by 51%. He has expanded his cow numbers by 46 since the abolition of quotas. He is farming in band 3.

The second farmer is farming in band 2 on 209 kg/ha of nitrogen. He is farming with his son, who is taking over the family farm this year. He has not made a major expansion since the abolition of quotas. He has expanded his herd by ten cows. His family farm income will be reduced by €33,916, or 27%.

A farmer in County Cavan who is farming with his partner, with expanded cow numbers of 28 cows since the abolition of quotas, which, again, is an average farm family, would see a cut of €43,343 in farm income or a reduction of 18%. The last example I will give is that of a farmer in the county where I live, who is married with two children, with no expansion in cow numbers since the abolition of quotas, farming in band 3, whose milking cow numbers at present are very modest in modern terms at 47 cows. However, the reduction that would hit him if this comes to pass would be a reduction of 32 cows, which is a savage reduction in his farm income of 41% or €54,000.

We are talking about water quality, but the economic impact of what will happen cannot be underestimated. The average age of dairy farmers in this country is 59. To attract young people into an industry, they have to see a career path and career progression. The examples of the four family farms I gave all concern young farmers, with some just taking over the farm and others married with young children. All face very serious economic challenges. Thankfully, a member of the next generation is starting to farm with me. If I tell him next week we will have to reduce cow numbers by 10%, 15% or 20%, I dread to see what his reaction would be. No young person likes to take a step backwards. It will have a huge psychological impact on our industry.

I have a good few questions to ask but I will not hog the meeting completely. I will come in again to ask specific questions on the EPA and how its information is being dissected. The family farm structure that we pride ourselves on, and those family farms that are farming in derogation, are the ones that will get really hit by this. Mr. Callanan said we will probably be the only farmers in Europe who will be farming in derogation, but we are the only farmers who produce our milk from grass. The Danes make a big play of having their cows out for 120 days a year, but they just let them out for a little exercise and allow them to walk back in again. Our cows are at grass, in any reasonable year, for virtually 300 days out of 365. We have a very sustainable pattern of milk production.

I am not saying that to secure this derogation will be easy. I understand that when you are an outlier there will be difficulties, but it is important to our industry. Water quality and the steps that have been taken at farm level will show dividends in future. The core of our argument with the Commission in Brussels has to be that we are taking steps and we are modifying our practices. Those practices are starting to bear fruit. They will impact on water quality as we go forward. I do not think anyone will argue that it takes a very significant amount of time for changes and practices to impact on water quality and to show a significant return on water quality. This is a very important issue for our industry. I am not saying my opinion is uniform, even in this room but, as I said, and I state my status clearly, I am a dairy farmer. We pride ourselves on the production of the food we produce. Yes, we have to mindful of water quality. We have seen the introduction of restrictions on chemical nitrogen. It is hoped that as research on clover and mixed multispecies swards continues to increase at a significant pace, our dependency on chemical nitrogen is something that we will be able to reduce.

As I said, I have a few more specific questions to ask. However, I cannot stress enough the huge economic importance of this process for rural Ireland. It would be devastating. The future of some of our processing co-ops will be threatened if we are not able to hold onto the derogation. That is not an alarmist statement. I am speaking from a fair background of experience and knowledge of the dairy industry. Some of our co-ops will not survive if we have significant and spare capacity. A plant is being built by Tirlán at present, which is diversifying into European cheese. With the threat of Brexit, we saw the urgency of the need to invest in other markets. That is a very significant investment. Tirlán would be one of the areas hardest hit by any changes in derogation. It is hard to see the increased capacity there being met if these changes happen.

As I said, I have been dealing with this level of politics for a very long time. This is probably the biggest threat facing our industry. We had quotas for a long period that brought our industry to stagnation and had its own significant impact. However, if we tell our young farmers that the door is closed on them as regards moving their farms on, and not even the door being closed but farmers having to contract their farming enterprises, it will be a serious death knell for an awful lot of our family farms. It is difficult enough to attract the younger generation into this industry, which is so vital for us. I have not asked any specific questions but I will ask questions later on. I just wanted to outline where I see this issue and its huge implications not just for the dairy industry but for the whole rural economy.

Senator Lombard who, like me, is a dairy farmer, wants to get in.

Senator Tim Lombard

The officials are more than welcome. The Chairman made a very significant statement regarding his fear for the industry and where it is at present in respect of this proposal. I will ask a few questions. This 30-page report was published by the EPA last week. It contains very significant information that probably needs to be explained in detail. Has the Department released a press release on this issue? What communication has it had with the farming community in the past week regarding the publication of this report?

Mr. Bill Callanan

I will respond to a couple of the Cathaoirleach's opening remarks. I appreciate they were comments rather than questions. He will find that this side of the table understands the importance of this matter and shares his concern regarding how we approach and manage it. I assure everybody here that there is certainly not a defeatist approach to how we are progressing and doing this. I have dealt with farmers for a long time and the one thing I realise is that they like the facts straight, and to be given it straight as regards what the challenges are. In many ways, as the Cathaoirleach identified, the challenge is the economic importance has to be tempered by the consideration that the likes of a derogation is done on the basis of environmental and not economic concerns. We wanted to articulate in the opening statement that there is quite a sea change in Europe as regards the number of countries that are, effectively, walking away from derogation. They have options that they can explore. If they have, for example, a higher area of tillage in a country, they can move manure etc. to suit. They do not have the same dependence on grassland.

To explain the derogation and the nitrates regulation, the first thing to understand is that the regulation, annexe 3, is a limit on the amount of manure applied, not on the number of animals present. The regulation itself states that. People need to understand that. Within the derogation its availability is primed by four key questions. I do not have them off the top of my head but they are principally the long growing season, high rainfall, which denitrifies, and soils that have the capacity to denitrify. I cannot recall the fourth one but there are very specific conditions on which a derogation is sought. That derogation, however, is a derogation from the limit but not from the objectives of achieving good status in respect of water, and that has to be clear. The challenge here and for Ireland is that I want to be very realistic with farmers about the need to work together. That has to be one of the core messages, that we work together to get us on a trajectory of reducing nitrates and phosphorous in water and, therefore, when it comes to 2025 we are in a much better position from that we are in today in respect of the discussions and negotiations with the Commission. I have to be very honest about that. It is assessed in terms of environmental compliance, and the difficulty, as I said in my opening statement, is that the trend in respect of nitrates has been upwards - modestly upwards but upwards. In that context we have a lot of water which has nutrient levels that are too high in respect of the objective of the water framework directive of good status. That is what is resulting in the scrutiny in terms of that future viability. The message I want to give is that we have to work together and both Departments will work very closely with farmers in that regard.

The Senator asked a direct question. To answer it specifically, our Minister was quite clear that we needed a process as to how to bring the EPA water report to people's attention. He set up a working group, which is under my chairmanship, to bring stakeholders together to look at what we can do collectively. That is a very open process in that we have already met three times. It was felt that that is the most appropriate forum to which to bring this report first. We brought the report to the working group on Thursday of last week, before it was sent to the Commission. We then uploaded it onto our website once the EPA had uploaded it to its website, and then it was very much discussed at the likes of the dairy day yesterday. All the farm bodies are aware of this report and are participating in the working group. Effectively, they got sight of this first, before anybody else did.

Senator Tim Lombard

With deepest respect, however, it could be argued that there has been no actual announcement or presentation directly from the Department regarding this issue. The Minister and the Department have not come out and even explained the maps pertaining to the report, whether the map on page 21 or the other maps in the report. The confusion out there at the moment within the farming community about reading the report and working out where, who and what is the actual angle taken is a significant issue for the farming community. I would argue that yes, it is in the press, but the Department and the Minister need to be in front and explaining the report to the people. There is significant information and there are significant detailed maps in it. Do I know it fully? To be honest, probably not but I have read it as much as I possibly can. I think a body of work needs to be done in the Department on informing the public.

Mr. Bill Callanan

We are very open as to what is the best approach to this but we have been very open in terms of its content. The content of the map was out on Twitter before the meeting was over, I think. It got a lot of exposure. It was subject to three sessions at the Moorepark dairy day in terms of explaining it and understanding it. We had invited the EPA to come directly to the working group last Thursday to better explain how the criteria work in terms of the calculation of the map. There certainly is an education process in understanding the implications of the map. That will have to engage because, as identified, we already have to embark on an overall review of water quality this summer as well as an interim review of the nitrates action programme to be delivered by the end of September. Within that process we will invest heavily in consultation and collaboration with the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage in respect of that process of an understanding on the part of farmers. Certainly, at the likes of the dairy day - and I was there yesterday-----

Senator Tim Lombard

Yesterday, I met Teagasc people at the dairy day who told me openly that they did not understand the maps. We were looking through the report and I asked one of them if he could explain it to me. He said he could not. He had spent the last week looking at it. There is an opportunity, maybe not in this forum but at some forum in the next two or three days, to get real clarification out there. I realise that Mr. Massey did a job in Timoleague last week and spoke in Moorepark yesterday, but the clarity as to what is in this 28-page document is just not good enough. The farming community are scratching their heads. I was walking across the plinth today. I got three different telephone calls before I could get to it from people wanting to know about the map, where it was, where they were on it and what all red means in the map. This is basic stuff. We need to get out in front. It has been a week now since the report was published. The farming community need to have that information, and I appeal to the Department in particular.

Mr. Bill Callanan

That is noted. Our intention is obviously to be very open about the implications. At the time of securing the variation we did meetings with all farm bodies, a webinar with farm advisers and a webinar with the Signpost Series, which was open to all farmers. That was available for them to get an understanding. I take what the Senator says about ensuring that all farmers are aware of it. We will take that on board.

Senator Tim Lombard

Regarding what has happened since last March, last March was the indication that something happened and that there would be a proposed change to the derogation. Can the witnesses explain to me the process of communication and dialogue with the Commission? How many times did they meet? What is the feedback? What is the Commission saying? What has been the general approach from the Commission since last March?

Mr. Bill Callanan

Does Mr. Massey want to open that?

Mr. Ted Massey

Certainly. I thank the Senator for the question. I have met Commission officials three times since we secured the derogation last March. I met them in June of last year, where we discussed this move to 20 measurements and the possible impacts it would have and argued for flexibility. I met them subsequently in January of this year. That was an online meeting. We presented our derogation report for 2021 at that stage and discussed not only that but also the need for a science-based approach that would be targeted to drive improvements in water quality. More recently - I think it was 13 June - I met the Commission in Brussels on this issue as well.

Senator Tim Lombard

What is the feedback from the Commission?

Mr. Ted Massey

The Commission's opinion and what it is communicating to us has changed over that period. Since the start of this year, in my opinion - this is only my opinion - it has become much more focused on these 2027 water framework directive targets. When we go to them talking about flexibility, they tell us how it has become much more difficult for the Commission to justify granting a derogation, especially when it comes to issues like water quality, where they are not seeing improvements. They say to us that we also need to consider the longer term. One can read between the lines as to what they are saying there but they are saying we have to consider what will be good for our industry in the longer term as well when we are calling for flexibility now. They say they are very much focused on those 2027 targets, and that is presenting a real challenge for us. We have asked for more time for the measures to be able to demonstrate their effectiveness, and the response from the Commission is that we do not have time to wait. That is the kind of discussion we are having.

Mr. Bill Callanan

I was there on 13 June as well. It is fair to say the Commission has identified that everybody has signed up to the objectives of the water framework directive. In that context, the nitrates regulation is simply a subset regulation in terms of its overall contribution. It is the agricultural contribution to that. It is fair to say that the Commission is recognising that across Europe there has been no progress of any substance on water quality overall, but it still identifies that Ireland can do more and should be doing more to achieve good status.

The ask from our Minister was to explore that question of flexibility. I concur with Mr. Massey, however, that the attitude on the other side of the table is that while we have seen an overall decline in nitrate levels, what is Ireland's solution in terms of how we are to move the dial in relation to it. It is not easy, as I keep reminding people. I have worked on the environment for a long time. Effort and impact are two separate things when it comes to the environment. I do not believe anybody can give a guarantee that if someone does X, it will result in a reduction of Y in load. We can certainly model and identify priority areas. We identified that we would reduce nitrogen allowances in line with what has been agreed through the dairy group and beef and sheep groups. A 30% reduction by 2030 has been agreed in principle. We introduced a 10% reduction in the review the last time. We saw a significant reduction in overall fertiliser usage last year but the nitrate level in water did not go down. This is where the complexity is evident. There were weather issues that undoubtedly contributed to that overall. In general, the attitude of the Commission is that it wants to see progress.

As Mr. Massey said, the challenge of granting a derogation in that context is infinitely harder. The message at this point of the conversation is that we are open in terms of how to make progress. That is the objective of the Minister's group and we will work with farmers to achieve it. As chair, I have said it is up to the group to establish how best to deliver this. My own thinking is to identify how we connect farmers to the quality of water locally in order that they understand that the way in which they farm has local impacts and connect with the issue of water quality. A second issue is to improve the compliance element so that it is not driven by whether the Department inspects someone's farm but, rather, that farmers understand the reason we are carrying out additional measures. We also have to look at what additional actions farmers can and should take to deliver improved water quality.

Senator Tim Lombard

Will Mr. Callanan elaborate on the group of which he is the chairperson, including information on its establishment, its members and what it involves?

Mr. Bill Callanan

I do not have the terms of reference but we will send them to the committee. We have agreed them with the stakeholders. The group includes representatives from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the farm bodies, Teagasc, the local authority waters programme, LAWPRO, and An Fóram Uisce.

Senator Tim Lombard

Are the financial implications of the reduction in nitrates a part of the terms of reference? In other words, will the group produce a figure to tell me what it mean for rural areas, processors and family farms if we came back with a lower level of nitrogen?

Mr. Bill Callanan

I caution the Senator on that as I have been here before. In 2014, we approached one of the eastern European member states while securing votes for Ireland's derogation and the clear and unequivocal response was that this is decided on environmental rather than economic grounds. One may argue the rights and wrongs of that-----

Senator Tim Lombard

I will.

Mr. Bill Callanan

-----but to be clear, the Commission's approach is based on environmental not economic grounds. One member state identified that there is an economic advantage to Ireland as a result of this, on which it was not particularly keen. I appreciate the Senator's comments on calculating the impact of any reduction. However, our clear focus-----

Senator Tim Lombard

I am sorry to interrupt but a vote has been called in the Seanad. I will come back later.

Mr. Bill Callanan

The focus of the group is on actions that we collectively should take with the objective of delivering better water quality.

Deputy Brian Leddin

I welcome the witnesses. I was happy to hear Mr. Callanan refer to the importance of the science-led approach. I put on record my dismay at the comments of the president of the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, when he disregarded the report published last week and described it as nonsensical. That was unfair to the EPA and the scientists working in it because they are absolutely committed to science, as we all should be. Mr. Cullinan is not here to defend himself but he went on the record and went out very strongly to undermine the EPA and its report. That is regrettable. If the witnesses want to address the point that the report is nonsensical, I would be interested to hear their views.

We have to figure out a way forward that is not divisive and is as unified as possible. It could be argued that the derogation is a blunt instrument. The Commission is at the point where it is using a blunt instrument to address the issue because there has been such a decline in the water quality in our river courses and we have not got into line with the objectives of the water framework directive, notwithstanding the good work that has been done vis-à-vis the nitrates action plans and by farmers all over the country, some more than others. That has to be acknowledged.

In addressing the challenge of water quality perhaps beyond the derogation, and even beyond 2027, I would like to hear more from the Department on the river basin management plans and the catchment-based approach to improving water quality. Perhaps that issue is more for the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. I ask the officials to talk about catchment-specific measures to address the challenge that we have in improving our water quality. There are approximately 1,000 bodies of water in the country that are impacted by agriculture. The river basin management plans seem to be the correct instrument to address that water quality.

Mr. Bill Callanan

I will start before handing over to my colleague.

We have been focused on the catchment-specific approach for some time. The Deputy's first comment was that derogation is a blunt instrument. There is no doubt about that. We have the debate about whether to set a figure of 170 kg of nitrogen per hectare, 180 kg of nitrogen per hectare or whatever. We set up the agricultural catchments programme and there are multiple influencers of water quality, including the load, the pathway and how it transfers into water.

Ireland has to be recognised as having been very ambitious in its nitrates action programme because we included a whole-territory approach and nitrogen and phosphorus as subject to the nitrates rules. That approach was not universal. In my early days in this role, only four countries had phosphorus as part of their nitrates action programme. Many other countries split their programmes into nitrate vulnerable zones and non-nitrate vulnerable zones. We avoided that, meaning the actions were for all farmers.

The Department provides support for farmers such as support for less equipment for slurry storage and we enable farmers through that. Similarly, we have the agri-environment scheme, which has been informed by water quality maps for many years. In this iteration and the previous iteration of our agri-environment schemes, the EPA maps were used as the priority selection tools to ensure that farmers within an area identified as having a water quality issue are required to take water quality actions as part of their plans. We worked carefully and closely with the EPA on that.

Similarly we worked through the agricultural sustainability support and advisory programme, ASSAP, where we put ten advisers on the ground to advise and support farmers. The Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage has matched that by providing ten advisers as well. Industry also matched it by providing eight advisers at the time and is now providing at least 42 advisers collectively. They are working in priority areas based on the Environmental Protection Agency's, EPA's, identification of potential areas for change. There has been a lot of focus at Government level, as regards the integration between the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and between the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the EPA, to bring that kind of catchment knowledge and awareness of the right action for the right place. The maps released by the EPA last week identified that nitrates is the issue in certain areas and it is phosphorous in other areas. If the soil is heavy, it is phosphorous over land; for other areas, it is nitrates. That is well understood and as a consequence, it is about the right action in the right place. There will be further progress on that.

Mr. David Flynn

Deputy Leddin raised a few things about the comments on the report. I did not see the comments so I will not comment specifically on them, but I will speak about the report and the EPA. I have worked closely with many of the people who produce these reports for many years. They are absolute experts in their area. They are dedicated to the work and to the scientific approach. I encourage everyone to read the report in detail before commenting on it. It is a short enough report and is quite accessible. A supplementary report goes with it, which explains the methodologies behind it and the approach of the EPA.

The nitrates directive is a blunt instrument. It is certainly non-selective. Our mantra as regards the approach to the river basin management plan is "the right measure in the right place". We look at the geology and the practices in an area and select our measures based on that. In areas of nitrates risk, we look at different measures from those we look at in areas where phosphorous is a risk. The issue is over land flow in those areas. In those terms, it is not as selective as some of the other instruments that are available to us locally through the river basin management plan and the implementation of the general water framework directive. That being said, it is a 1991 directive so the Commission is looking at the length of time the directive has been in place. All member states have had to address these issues. That is why we are seeing some of the blunter elements of the directive being used at this stage.

On catchment specific measures, there are approximately 1,000 water bodies where agriculture is one of the significant pressures. Some of those are phosphorous, some are nitrates and some are a mix of both. To its credit, the EPA has included targeting on page 21 of its report that was released last week. In many other reports, it included maps showing those areas. If we were to address matters in the absence of this requirement from the Commission, we would be looking to select measures based on the map on page 21.

Mr. Callanan mentioned ASSAP, which is the free-at-the-point-of-use advice available to farmers. There has been huge engagement in that by farmers. Up to 90% of farmers who were approached have engaged in the process. It is based on local authorities using EPA data to look at the catchments and advisers from ASSAP going into those areas with the knowledge of which specific measure is needed. Now we need to show, beyond that engagement, what measures are being implemented on the ground on farms following the ASSAP engagement and what effect they have on water, by measuring that. As Mr. Callanan said, Ireland has a complex geology and hydro-geology. We have a much more heterogenous landscape than some parts of Europe. Part of the work is communicating that to the Commission. However, as I said, it is a 1991 directive.

Deputy Brian Leddin

It is fair to say the Commission is probably at the end of its tether with Ireland and that is why we are where we are.

Mr. David Flynn

That is one way to characterise it. The date for the water framework directive, 2027, is approaching and the nitrates directive is a mandatory measure under the water framework directive. It sits with all the other mandatory and supplementary measures under the water framework directive. The approaching date is focusing the minds of the Commission. As regards the political make-up of the Commission and the green deal, there has been a greater focus from the Commission on this area in recent years.

Deputy Brian Leddin

I do not want to take much more of the committee's time. Do we expect the river basin management plan to be published this year?

Mr. David Flynn

Yes, we have-----

Deputy Brian Leddin

In addition, what will happen after that to distil it down to the catchment level and ultimately to the farm level?

Mr. David Flynn

The implementation is continuing all the time. ASSAP is working away. The local authorities are working on implementing the water framework directive every day. A draft of the river basin management plan was published. A long public consultation period ended at the end of March 2022. Since then, we have been working closely with stakeholders - especially An Fórám Uisce, the national statutory stakeholder body, which includes farm organisations, NGOs and industry - to bring the final plan to the Government, we hope, in the early autumn.

Deputy Brian Leddin

Once the plan is published, what will the follow-on from it be? What catchment level measures can we expect?

Mr. David Flynn

There will be 46 catchment plans, which are sub-plans of the river basin management plan. They will look at each of the 46 catchments and what is required for urban waste water; hydromorphology, which is the flow and shape of rivers; forestry; and agriculture. It will involve engaging through the local authorities with the local stakeholders in the catchments, taking the national level requirements and commitments and bringing them down into the catchments. We will start with five pilot catchments.

Mr. Bill Callanan

Can I make a comment? I would not characterise the Commission's view of Ireland as being that it is at the end of its tether. I do not think that should come out of this meeting because infringement proceedings are the end of the tether for the Commission. To be clear, Ireland has not been put under infringement in this area. I would argue that the derogation process for a number of member states resulted in an engagement with the Commission where effectively it was eyeballing a member state in a negotiation about what it is doing and its additional actions. That was beneficial for the Commission because its alternative, if it did not support a derogation, was infringement which is a much slower - four or five year - process. From way back, there was a value to the Commission in having that derogation negotiation - let us be honest, it was a negotiation - because it created an environment where the Commission was negotiating what the national action programme should look like and whether it would potentially be successful, whereas what is happening in many countries that do not have a derogation is that the only censure is infringement. That is a long process. It can take four or five years. Most recently, I think the Belgians have been subject to an infringement process. I wanted to add that for clarity.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I thank the speakers for coming in. I received a text message this morning from a young farmer who would not ordinarily contact a politician. He told me as much. However, he told me it was time for us to stand up for rural Ireland. He is one of 19 farmers in County Longford who is availing of the derogation. He sees it as critical to his future. I classify him as an extremely conscientious farmer. His farm looks immaculate to the townie I am. It looks as though he is doing everything possible. He has made all the investments and is passionate about his community. He says the derogation is as it was most succinctly put by our Chair in the examples he gave. Many of us take our lead from the Chair. I appreciate what Mr. Callanan said about this being a decision that will be made on an environmental and not economic basis. However, the economic impact of this is shattering for Ireland.

It is easy for Europe in this instance to say it is made on an environmental basis, but in several instances decisions have been made in Europe on an economic basis. We do not have to look too far back into the recent past to see it doing that.

Similarly, it is easy for Belgium and Holland to walk away from the derogation. As Mr. Callanan rightly said, they have options. The profile of our industry is unique, as is the profile of the farming community here. Farmers have definitely embraced the fifth nitrates action programme. It challenged them probably more than any other initiative but farmers stood up to that. We see daily the scale of the investment they are making. I am in no doubt that the 19 farms in County Longford are supporting a wider community. They are feeding into a large processing sector that sustains several provincial towns. It is fair to say that rural Ireland sees this as a line in the sand. Increasingly, what farmers and their neighbours are telling us is that rather than an arbitrary flicking of the switch, which is what Europe seems to be insisting on, the dairy sector needs to be allowed to continue what we would all agree is a radical journey of change that it has enthusiastically undertaken.

I have a key question for Mr. Callanan - it is probably more for Mr. Massey - on the negotiations. I know they are both engaging with the committee and have provided some additional clarity on the issue in response to the Chairman. My neighbours would argue that we are not sufficiently getting across the impact this threat will pose to our rural communities. In particular, we have not communicated how such an arbitrary decision will affect families, communities, schools and everything that goes with them.

I appreciate that the starting point of the Department is probably to reach a compromise. Have the officials articulated the impact this will have economically and socially on families in Ireland?

Mr. Bill Callanan

I want to be careful about the suggestion regarding what will happen in other countries, as that may have been misunderstood. I presented on water quality at the same time as the Dutch secured an agreement in the previous 2020 negotiations. Some 20,000 farmers in Holland are in derogation. We have 7,000 to 7,500 farmers in derogation, give or take. Holland is a country the size of Munster with a dairy herd equivalent to us and about double the milk production. The Dutch are way more intensive than anything we would see in Ireland. The water quality in Holland demonstrates that. The limit for nitrates was 50 mg. Mr. Flynn might be able to answer this also. Half of all the waters in Holland exceeded that. We are talking about a situation here where in 70% to 80% of our waters, we have levels of less than 25 mg. We are not comparable with the Dutch in terms of our level of intensity. Their dependence on the derogation was even higher and more economically important to them in terms of that construct. This illustrates the challenge that if we are not delivering in terms of water quality then nobody is safe, if we want to put it like that, in terms of the challenge.

On farmers showing positivity towards the derogation, including the farmer Deputy Flaherty spoke about, that is our experience as well with the agricultural catchments programme and the meetings that are held in that regard. We always hear that the more intensive dairy farmers are the first to turn up and the first to hear what they can do. I agree with what has been said about them as part of the sector. Where I differ, however, is with the view that making a good economic argument to the Commission would sway it from the environmental requirements that are upon us. It will not. I want to be clear on that.

On the engagement with the Commission, one of the points we strongly highlighted was that Ireland has ambitions in terms of forestry, organics, increasing the tillage area and anaerobic digestion. They are the diversification options we have in our climate action plan for agriculture. We clearly identified that if we look at the economic relevance of dairying, there is a risk to all those sectors in terms of the increased demand for land, and the pressure that it has resulted in this year in terms of land price for rental. That is obvious and very plain to see. We have seen rental land costs go up significantly, fuelled by demand. That can have negative impacts everywhere else.

I return to my principal tenet, that whatever the criticism of the reduction to 220 kg per hectare, we would like everybody to focus on the fact that we have an option to get this at least moving in the right direction by 2025 by working collectively with farmers. It would be remiss of me and an abdication of responsibility, as somebody who has worked in this area for a long time and has been involved in a lot of negotiations, not to give that message around the risks in 2025. The game has changed and we need to see progress.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

If I could come in there, that probably brings me on to a point Mr. Callanan made in his opening statement to the effect that he would agree that the best way to secure a derogation and a future for farmers is through a science-led targeted approach, with the whole industry coming together. Mr. Callanan accepted as well that the farming community will not be found wanting in this regard. What that young farmer asked me this morning is if we can assure farmers that it is our default line in these negotiations. We are simply not going to settle for a watered down compromise and that our default line in the negotiations has to be that we want a whole-of-industry approach. We want a multi-agency approach; and we want to bring everyone together. We embrace the science but we need to be given time to complete that journey.

Mr. Bill Callanan

I caution that in terms of discussions with the group that I chair, I worked very strongly to ensure there was not a perception that we were asking the group to consider how to improve the situation. That cannot be taken as a certainty in reopening the decision that was agreed on, the reduction to 220 kg per hectare as part of the derogation negotiations at that time. The Minister has asked us to engage on the potential for flexibility. We are doing that, and we will continue to do so. I just do not want it suggested in any way that it would be a quid pro quo for us. We are trying to get our house in order, in particular in regard to the medium term. If that were to emerge from discussions with the Commission, so be it, but it should not be taken as an expectation. We are asking farmers to do more now. We want to get greater cohesion between industry, the Department and the Government. I do not want to give a false expectation of the talks resulting in that kind of change. The discussions on our current derogation, which took place two years ago, included this condition. I remind people that despite seeking to revise it, when we negotiated a four-year derogation a year and a half ago, compared with the previous four-year negotiation, we have seen 300,000 additional cows in the system, give or take, increases in overall fertiliser usage and a decline in water quality. That was the overall environment in which we were negotiating at that time. It was therefore going to be difficult, given the demand we have seen. Those conditions were a part of that discussion at the time in terms of even securing a vote across all the members and getting a qualified majority.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

With the indulgence of the Chair, I have one final question for Mr. Callanan. I do not think it is a case of farmers saying they want to get their house in order. Farmers are the first to say that they are aggressively taking on this challenge. It is not a case of them getting their house in order. Farmers are working very hard to resolve this issue.

Mr. Bill Callanan

I apologise if my language was not correct.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

That is okay. I am trying to go through the report. Science was probably my worst subject in school. It is very laborious for me to read the report but, in fairness, I am trying to get through it. Going back to my school days, I was struck by one point, namely, that statistics and science are all about interpretation. One man can interpret 50% as very good and another man can interpret it as very bad. If we look at the table on page 6, which shows nitrate concentration, over a 12-year period, if anything, we have not disimproved, and we have probably had a marginal improvement. Mr. Callanan referenced himself the situation in terms of water quality in the Netherlands. It is probably infinitely poorer than ours in terms of the concentration.

Mr. Bill Callanan

Yes, it is.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

As Mr. Callanan says, the decision is going to be made on an environmental basis. The key point, as highlighted in figure 2, is that the mean nitrate concentration in one of the monitoring sites was greater than 50 mg. This site was used to supply drinking water. The crucial line states that it has an appropriate water treatment system in place to ensure the provision of safe drinking water. I appreciate that there is a multiagency approach to this and that Uisce Éireann is in the mix. Can the argument be made that we should intensify our investment in water treatment and water security through Uisce Éireann while allowing farmers to continue on this journey? Is that not a story we need to tell as part of the argument to the EU?

Mr. Bill Callanan

I partly agree with the Deputy. I will ask Mr. Flynn to deal with the science of that. However, it is important to look at the two elements - phosphorous and nitrogen. Phosphorous is contributed to by septic tanks, wastewater treatment and agriculture. Nitrogen, in particular in groundwater, which is very deep water, is predominantly an agricultural issue. It is not solely an agricultural issue, but it is predominantly an agricultural one. Investment in Uisce Éireann would certainly, if necessary, impact that phosphorous piece. However, it would be less impactful in terms of nitrate concentrations and our nitrate load.

Mr. David Flynn

One of the key issues is outlined on page 9. In 2022, 44% of our rivers had a mean nitrate concentration above 8 mg. The EPA says the long-term trends are going in the wrong direction. It is clearly stating that we have a difficulty here. That is the issue we are dealing with. Every report produced by the EPA in the period we are looking at states that we have a difficulty with water quality, especially with nitrates and in particular from agriculture.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

Let us look at the 12-year period outlined on page 6. Had we made sufficient investment in water security over that period, would we not be in a significantly different position than we are now? Right now, to the world at large, the Irish farmer is the bogeyman. Can the case be made, that if we had invested sufficiently in water security, we would not be where we are today?

Mr. David Flynn

The Deputy used one example of nitrate levels in groundwater greater than 50 mg. There was appropriate treatment in place. You are required to first look at the catchment rather than put in treatment. That is a last resort and is not something we should rely on. It is costly to run. From the point of view of the water framework and drinking water directives, it is not the approach required.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

It would not be as costly as wiping out an industry. If we had made that investment-----

Mr. David Flynn

The requirements of the nitrates directive still apply. I also want to comment on a comparison between member states that comes up a lot. Speaking relatively, we have good water quality in Ireland in comparison with many other member states. There is a requirement in both the water framework directive and the nitrates directive that this does not deteriorate. The fact that we started with such good water quality means we have to hold that good water quality. That does not mean the others do not have to improve. That comparison with other states sometimes comes up and does not really help.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I thank the witnesses.

Deputy Michael Collins

I thank the Chair. I agree with his opening statement. It clearly outlines the current position of Irish dairy farmers and Irish agriculture. I welcome the witnesses.

I think I am correct when I say that the report is not defeatist. It states that Ireland can do more, and the witnesses are open on how progress can be made. Irish farmers have been trying to do their best. There needs to be an understanding about that across the board. They have low-emission slurries. They are working on protected urea, clover and low protein rations. These are all coming in now, and in time will yield progress. I was recently at one farm in Farnanes, County Cork, which I mention quite often. One of the county agricultural groups was at a farm in Barryroe recently, and if the nitrate cuts go ahead, the farmer will go from 80 cows to 53 cows. You may say it is not a culling of cows, but if farming practice is restricted because of what is being pointed out as contaminating the waters, this is where it will end up. These farmers will be wiped out one by one. The man in Farnanes said that no matter what he does, he can do not better than he is doing right now. He is doing it meticulously. The man in Barryroe is doing his work meticulously. They are both doing as well as they can. However, they cannot go from 80 cows to 53, and they cannot go from 79 to 60. It is not going to work. The only winner in this will be the Brazilians. They will grow and grow, and we will wipe ourselves out, bit by bit. I wish I could take the three witnesses for a lovely spin down to west Cork this weekend. I can take them where, as we speak, raw sewage is going from each village into the tide, and into every river and everywhere. I can take them round and show them. I am working on one-----

Mr. Bill Callanan

I know it. I was an adviser down there 25 years ago. I know it down to Ring and all of that area-----

Deputy Michael Collins

There is also Goleen and places like that.

Mr. Bill Callanan

Yes.

Deputy Michael Collins

I have been on the Community Council in Goleen since 1999. We are doing our best to provide a sewage system for Goleen. It has not happened since 1999. There is raw sewage being pumped into the tide, and the Department is chasing the poor farmer. I was at a public meeting in Shannonvale in Clonakilty recently. There is raw sewage bursting over the ground and pouring into the reservoir, rivers and waters of Clonakilty. Nobody gives a damn. However, the poor farmer will be chased to within an inch of his life. Every time someone gets up in the Dáil, the farmer is blamed. He is the only culprit for all of the problems we have in our water. Our country has turned its back on the issue of sewage that needs to be treated and the treatment plants that need to be built. That is the biggest culprit in the contamination of our waters. I plead that we fight on. Irish agriculture is under immense pressure. The one word that stood out when I was at the farm in Farnanes was farmers saying they were treated like environmental terrorists, and they are not. That is a sad fact, and it is coming from the floor of our own parliament. It happens continuously that every time there is an environmental issue the finger is pointed at the farmer. To be quite honest, they are doing very well, and are coming on. There are obviously issues and there is no point saying different. However, they must be given some slack. They are working on areas that will create big improvements down the road. I thank the witnesses.

Mr. Bill Callanan

I will deal with a couple of questions. I concur fundamentally. There is no doubt that there is fatigue among farmers in terms of that criticism. I certainly do not want to add to that. I also have to be direct and honest with farmers in terms of the changing environment. If the derogation is to be secured in 2025, the application for which is principally a matter for Government, we have to be in the best possible position for that discussion. We have to be conscious of that. While everybody is criticising the 250 to 220, in terms of our engagement with the Commission, we need to be looking at this from 170 to 220 and not the other way round. In the interests of avoiding misunderstanding, I acknowledge that farmers are adopting new technologies. Some impact on climate and some impact on water. The issue of protecting urea is solely a climate matter, and not a water quality one. It does not reduce the overall load in terms of nutrient. I want to be clear on that. It is similar with less equipment. Farmers have adopted it. My most recent figures show that approximately 5,000 farmers have adopted it, but that is principally about ammonia. Ammonia is reduced through the use of low-emission slurry spreading. Because of its availability for use and the ability to graze quite quickly afterwards, this is also displacing chemical fertiliser.

The overall usage through low emission slurry equipment is valuable in terms of displacing chemicals, which would have an impact on water, but not directly in and of itself. I invite Deputy Michael Collins to look at the map on page 6 showing mean nitrate concentrations in groundwater. I am not here to challenge the Deputy's facts in terms of sewage and Mr. Flynn may attest to that but were the Deputy to looks at all of those nitrates concentrations in groundwater, they are predominantly inland, subject to those wastewater issues the Deputy is talking about. It is very hard to get away from it predominantly being, from a nitrate point of view, agriculturally-driven. If it is phosphorous, however, there are multiple pressures which include urban wastewater, septic tanks and agriculture. It is a very much different water pressure arising in that regard but nitrate in groundwater is predominantly agricultural. That has always been the science associated with that.

Mr. David Flynn

I might come in on that too, Chair, if that is okay. In terms of the urban wastewater side of things, in fairness to the Environmental Protection Authority, EPA, it produces reports on urban wastewater, on septic tanks, on the nitrates and phosphorous report it has produced recently and on water quality generally. It has never shied away from the fact that there are multiple pressures across all sides, including wastewater. The Government is putting a huge amount of investment into wastewater and into improving wastewater treatment in terms of raw sewage. There are areas that have been identified by the EPA. Projects by Irish Water, Uisce Éireann, are under way for all of those areas and by the end of 2025 all 32, bar two, should be dealt with in the areas identified in the EPA reports.

Similarly, there are two aspects where urban wastewater is concerned. There is directive compliance in terms of the actual quality of the treatment at each treatment plant. Then there are the pressures that wastewater, irrespective of its performance, is having on water quality itself. As the EPA has identified 208 water bodies that have wastewater as a significant pressure, I think it is identifying where wastewater issues are happening. It has identified agriculture as affecting 1,000 bodies of water, as I mentioned earlier.

Deputy Michael Collins

I thank Mr. Flynn and sincerely hope he is right that by 2025, these changes will have been made. Some issues have been going on since 1993 and it is adding to the reports as they come out. I sometimes worry that the water is being muddied slightly and that farmers are being dragged into it and fingers are being pointed at them. Do the witnesses agree with me that the State is the biggest polluter due to outdated sewage plants in towns and villages?

Mr. David Flynn

In the EPA water quality reports that look at water bodies and what is causing the pressure on water status in them, the top one was agriculture, primarily cultural nutrients, then hydromorphology, which is the shape and flow of the rivers, then it was forestry and urban wastewater was fourth. One of the issues is that many of those other areas are either stable or improving so the number of water bodies is lessening, whereas that is not the case in agriculture at the moment. Those are the data the EPA has given us.

Deputy Claire Kerrane

I thank the witnesses for their opening statement and for their attendance. I have some questions. As a lot of information has been put out already, I will try to not repeat what has been said. As time is very much of the essence regarding this issue, when it comes to the engagement with the Commission, will the witnesses give us more information on what grounds the Department has sought that flexibility? Its representatives have repeated a number of times that the argument and the Commission's approach is not economic and very much based on environmental matters and the science. Given that is the fact and that is its approach, how strong an argument we have made on that specific basis?

I appreciate the water quality working group was only established in May but has it met yet? How many times has it met and what is the timeline for that group's work to make sure it can feed in to the interim review? Likewise, what is the interim review's timeline to start and finish, again with it very much in mind that time is of the essence in this matter?

It has been mentioned a few times that new measures have been put in place. Farmers are working very hard because they need this to work if they want to keep the derogation, so naturally they will do whatever is required of them to do. Regarding the new measures themselves, are the witnesses confident they are enough to improve water quality? The measures that are in place this year will not be seen until next year and that is why the report from the EPA is almost premature, in that it does not take into account those measures that farmers have been doing and continue to do. Are the witnesses confident that the measures in place today and that have been taken this year are enough?

Lastly, the point has made relating to confusion, particularly around the EPA report, and I take what the Senator said regarding the maps in particular. Given that it has said that Mr. Massey has had a number of sessions at Moorepark, I presume a lot of that confusion was raised at those sessions. Can we get more information relating to the feedback given directly from farmers at those sessions who are the ones we obviously need to hear from? I welcome that the witnesses said this will be about working together. That is really important and needs to happen as quickly as possible because it is about time.

Mr. Bill Callanan

I will start in terms of the argument, to be clear. Mr. Massey has ongoing engagement with the Commission and I went over in July as well with him and Mr. Flynn for that meeting. We set out the challenges this has potential to cause in terms of that land, the competition element of it. We also provided them with the work Teagasc has done in terms of the calculation and contribution of a reduction from 250 kg to 220 kg. To be clear, as the Commission was very conscious that by the end of June, it would have a water quality report, the substantive argument we are making around that is contingent on this report. We have provided the Commission with an invitation or request to meet its representatives. We have also invited it to Ireland to see Ireland and our environment in terms of where we work. There will be ongoing engagements on that argument. However, we will have to look at it in the context of - the Commission will be very much looking at it in the context of - this report and the water quality associated with it. We must be conscious that when Ireland secured a derogation, it was on the basis of certain conditions, including this review. The Commission now has the data relating to it. I would not like to give people absolute confidence that what we proposed in terms of additionality to the working group or whatever will result the willingness of the Commission to reopen that discussion or to even propose another vote. I just cannot give that guarantee. It would be incorrect of me to do so. We have committed to that discussion with the Commission overall in terms of the flexibility part. There is no guarantee that it may be open to that.

Deputy Claire Kerrane

On the point regarding the invitation extended to the Commission to come here, has there been a response to that invitation?

Mr. Bill Callanan

It was during the meeting and it was very much a request that the Commission would engage further. To be clear, there was no commitment to come. The Commission is very busy, it has the soils directive-----

Deputy Claire Kerrane

It might be no harm though.

Mr. Bill Callanan

-----and soils law coming at it. There are a lot of agenda items coming from Brussels, as the Deputy can understand, in terms of the environment at the moment. I have no guarantee the Commission will come but we certainly would like to show the work we are doing, whether it is the agricultural catchments programme, ACP, the agricultural sustainability support and advisory programme, ASSAP, the investment we are doing in the likes of clover in terms of accelerated allowances that have been made available in order that people understand on the ground and it is better if they can see it. I just do not have certainty that invitation will be taken up.

As for the water group, we have met three times, quite regularly, every two to three weeks. We will continue that over the next period. As I said at the beginning, our very clear commitment to the Minister is that group should be the first to see this report. When we received it from the EPA and within a matter of two days that report was with that committee before it was sent to the Commission.

It will continue its work up to the end of the summer. We have identified and will put out an issues-type paper on the areas to be considered. That is my personal opinion on those three priorities. How do we connect farmers to water quality locally, how do we look at compliance and how do we look at additional actions? You are leaving nothing behind in order that in 2025, we are in our best position. The industry has to be engaged in that and this has to be supported by industry. As the Cathaoirleach said, we are very dependent on that milk supply. Government alone should not bear the cost, nor should farmers. It has to be a three-way engagement.

I think the last question was on what was the feedback from yesterday.

Mr. Ted Massey

Ultimately, the confusion primarily relates to the maps and differences in the maps versus what people would have expected. Some of that goes back to previous EPA publications. For example, its catchments of concern publication identified 12 catchments that needed nitrates reduction measures as a priority. If you look at the map that is being prepared and submitted to the Commission, it does not include some of those catchments, so people are rightly querying that. They are also looking at the map versus the map of the location of derogation herds and asking why they do not correlate better. In addition, they are looking at the map compared with the EPA map in the report around the targeting of measures. Again, they are raising the question of why the maps are not all aligning. The reason for that is because the EPA, in preparing the annex to the report, followed what the Commission requested of it in the Commission’s implementing decision. If one reads Article 12 of that decision, it sets out that the nitrates directive monitoring dataset is to be used for the preparation of this report. That is a subset of-----

An Cathaoirleach

As we have a vote in the Chamber, I will ask Senator Lombard to take the chair. I apologise for interrupting.

Senator Tim Lombard took the Chair.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We have five minutes before the vote. Does one of Deputies wish to speak first?

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I was looking at a map on which the whole of the country was red, meaning it needs additional measures. I was looking at some of the areas and there would be more cows in a corner of some counties than there would be in the whole of the county. What is the reasoning behind the EPA report on that?

Second, if I am a farmer and I do not draw grants, it does not affect me, does it?

Mr. Bill Callanan

On not drawing grants, I had to quell many of those conversations early this year and I have been crystal clear. The nitrates regulation is a regulation of the State; it is not contingent on someone being an applicant under basic payment. Yes, we apply penalties for somebody non-compliant through cross-reporting etc. in relation to it. It is primarily a regulation of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage but it is a basic regulation of the State, irrespective of whether a farmer decides to apply for basic payment. They are still required to comply with the nitrates regulation with regard to storage and spreading. All those actions apply anyway, irrespective of whether a farmer decides to engage with the basic payment system.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I will ask a few questions and get it on record. Regarding the EPA, we saw a case last week where evidence was required from the EPA and it was not able to produce it. Let us say farming organisations had a body or scientist that wanted to look at all the information. Has all of this been checked? I am involved in a group water scheme where you keep samples of the water. Is there a backup for all that evidence that has been given if the likes of farming organisations had their own science people who wanted to look at it? As chairman of a group water scheme, 20 or 25 years ago, there was a certain threshold of different things we had to do and that threshold has gone up to different scales. I do not have a problem with that but are we sampling different ways now or at different levels than we were years ago?

I had better go but I will return.

(Interruptions).

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Paul Daly is next.

Mr. Bill Callanan

I can hold Deputy Fitzmaurice's answers if he wants to return.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That might be appropriate.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

Can I get in when I come back from the vote?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Sure. We will work that out.

Mr. Bill Callanan

There is much conversation here about cows. That would be incorrect if it is all identified as cows. For example, in the south east of the country, a third of the pressure is tillage. We also see, in certain areas of the country, much less intensively farmed areas with water quality issues, predominantly associated with phosphorous. I accept that but it should not be associated with being just particularly a problem with one sector. The nitrates action programme is for all at all levels of intensity. Similarly, the message needs to be on the record here that in respect of the action programme, we are and will be asking the tillage sector, as other sectors, in terms of whether it is cover crops or issues like that would contribute to water quality.

Senator Paul Daly

I will carry on because I have a question that I was going to cover and I think Deputy Fitzmaurice was just starting into it. It is on the mechanics of the thing and how it works. From the acceptance of an EPA report to sending it straight out to Europe, is it ever queried? Is there any mechanism for querying the maps, technology or the outcome of the results? A point has been made about the report numerous times this evening. There is an old rule in our game of politics that if you are under pressure at a meeting and you baffle them with BS and keep talking, they will not be able to argue with you by the time the night is out. That report is a prime example of that. You can read it and read it and you are still no wiser. Is it every queried or is it just taken as a given because the EPA did it? In sports, you hear about the B sample. If there is a problem with the first test or first lab, a B sample will be done in an independent or second lab. We just seem to accept this. I am not accusing the EPA of anything here; I am just asking the question. Do we just take this verbatim and take a report that people, who are very knowledgeable in the field and well read-up on it, have openly said this evening they have read but cannot understand?

Mr. Bill Callanan

I will ask Mr. Flynn to deal with the question on the substantive issue. With regard to process, we asked the EPA to go the working group last Thursday and basically account, explain and answer questions. That meeting went from 2.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. It was a fairly intensive challenging of that science regarding the EPA's capacity to be to able to respond to questions such as whether it took this or whether it took that and on the points that were included in the overall. It was an open process in terms of that challenge, from a stakeholder point of view.

Senator Paul Daly

Did anyone ask them the question about the map that was referred to – the red area map? I know Mr. Callanan said this is not just cows but there is a map in it and, in my opinion, most of the cows in the country are not in the red area or my own area. The grouses even left our area, never mind the cows. It is all red. There are areas in the country that would be, my opinion, intensive. Does that say that the measures being taken by the farmers in derogation are working or does it query the authenticity of the report?

Mr. David Flynn

I thank the Senator. The technical unit in our Department has read the report, and I know the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has done so. We had no queries that went back to the EPA. I am not sure whether the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine had.

The report is published with supporting documentation. The EPA has been very open in coming to meetings of the water quality working group to explain the report, its basis and the difference between the monitoring programme used under the water framework directive and that used under the nitrates directive.

With regard to the map that is causing such understandable issues around this whole process, it is not a construct of the EPA but is based on the criteria set down in the implementing decision of the Commission. The EPA has taken the criteria that the Commission has set for good or ill and has implemented them in the report, and that is what gives rise to the map with the red area the Senator referred to. It is not a decision of the EPA to construct a map in the way in question on page 27 of the report; it is faithfully implementing what it was asked to do, which is what is in the legal text of the Commission's implementing decision.

The EPA is very open to explaining. Some queries have been raised with us about the data and standards used. I am sure the EPA will be happy to explain these to anybody who wants to hear from it. Its representatives have been to this committee and others on many occasions.

There has been a series of reports over many years setting out very similar issues. Therefore, there is nothing in this report that comes as a particular surprise regarding the water quality aspects or water quality findings. That is not to take away from how it is put together in the requirements of the Commission's implementing decision. It may not be how we would choose to proceed if we were free to proceed in our way, choosing the locations where we would like to see particular measures focused on nitrates and particular measures focused on phosphorus. One of the areas we should explore with the Commission is our ability to examine the map again and marry it with the concept of having the right measure in the right place, which we were speaking about earlier in the process.

Senator Paul Daly

Deputy Kerrane touched on an area that is a gripe of mine. I am aware that you cannot test in advance but we are a year behind, at least, with the testing. It is a year since measures, restrictions or actions were introduced. The results are 2022 results. Last year, we brought in many restrictions and actions and changed the artificial manure regulations. The war worked in the environment's favour last year, in that the amount of fertiliser used was greatly reduced because of its price. Despite this, decisions will be made in the immediate term and short term and no one will know until next year whether the actions will have resulted in an improvement. Do the delegates know what I mean? I am referring to the fact that we are a year behind. Hearing that there is no change is very frustrating for the farming community, who are buying into this, using low emission slurry spreading, LESS, cutting back on their use of artificial fertiliser, fencing off drains and doing everything they are asked to do. It is as if they are being told that their rates might be reduced to 220 kg of nitrogen per hectare or 170 kg of nitrogen per hectare in the short term because of last year's results and that what they have done in the meantime has been a waste of time and money because they are not going to get credit for it or are going to be punished irrespective of whether the required results will have been achieved. What has been done could achieve the results but we will not know until we get the water results for 2023 or 2024, at which we will be back at 220 kg of nitrogen per hectare or maybe even 170 kg of nitrogen per hectare. How do we make the case? How do we make the argument?

Mr. Bill Callanan

That is the inherent difficulty. I have said that effort does not equal impact in terms of the environment. I am at this job for quite some time. In 2018, about 408,000 tonnes of chemical nitrogen were applied. I am referring to the elemental figure, not the volume of nitrogen. It is about the amount in the bag. A nitrogen element of 27% means 27 kg in a 100 kg bag. Last year, we were down to 365,000 tonnes, give or take. That is a fairly substantial drop. We were tipping along at around 20% under and ended up 14% under at the end of the year. A certain amount of that was stocks bought forward. I am expecting the reduction will be found to be around 20%. We are aware that this is following through into this year. You would have expected to see a more dramatic impact on water as a result, but certainly the drought-----

Senator Paul Daly

Not necessarily on water in 2022.

Mr. Bill Callanan

Nitrogen is not long in the system, certainly in the sense of seeing some impact, but let us be clear that one of the criteria that related to many areas of the country was such that the nitrate level went up. Even if it held its own, however one might understand that, the nitrate level went up in the areas in question. We know through bitter experience in 2018 that when there is a drought, there is a significant concentration and a loss of nitrogen into the system as a result. That was an argument made to the Commission but the Commission is clear that if there are episodes that have an impact in terms of nitrogen loss, aligning actions are needed. It needs to be addressed, be it through allowances for nitrogen or otherwise, the view being that this should be part of your adaptation in terms of climate change and that you should be conscious of that.

Does Mr. Massey want to talk a little about the position on the maps?

Mr. Ted Massey

To go back to the maps and Deputy Kerrane's question, there are anomalies between the maps, and these are due to the dataset that has been used. As Mr. Flynn has said, the EPA has prepared its report in accordance with the requirements set down by the European Commission. In doing so, the EPA knew there would be anomalies, and that is why it has deliberately put a map into the report showing the need for a science-based, targeted approach and suggesting where we need measures for nitrogen and phosphorus.

Senator Paul Daly

I presume the delegates have tried to make the argument – it will not wash – that the decision is now going to be made on a potential reduction from 250 kg per hectare to 220 kg per hectare and that the restrictions or actions that have been taken in the past year are not going to be taken into consideration. In this regard, farmers who have invested in everything they were asked to invest in will never know whether they have had the desired effect, but they will still suffer. There is no point in telling them in 2024 that what they did in 2022 and 2023 actually did improve the water but that they are down to 220 kg per hectare and that the limit will never go back to 250 kg per hectare once it goes down. Do the delegates know the point I am making? It cannot be all science; there has to be an argument for logic here as well.

Mr. Bill Callanan

The difficulty with that logic, however, is that when we got to negotiate the last time, we had not the strongest hand. There is no point in saying otherwise in that-----

Senator Paul Daly

I get that; I appreciate that.

Mr. Bill Callanan

Currently, the risk is that other member states will walk away, etc. We have rehashed that. The Senator may say that the map can be examined and that it can be determined that the nutrient load in certain catchments is way too high in any event. The net of logic and science is growing in terms of understanding what a load is, how it is connected and effectively how it can be determined whether a derogation should apply in the future. The Commission would certainly concur that the limit of 220 kg per hectare is a very blunt instrument, but, equally, it has been crystal clear that Ireland needs to consider its position in 2025 when it comes to negotiating again. It is really putting an onus back-----

Senator Paul Daly

On the flip side, Mr. Callanan has said that water has not improved across Europe-----

Mr. Bill Callanan

Agreed.

Senator Paul Daly

-----but that we are now down to only two countries with a derogation. Could Mr. Callanan explain that?

Mr. Bill Callanan

The Commission's comment on that – there is a new team there – is that it feels there has been a lost decade in terms of water improvement across Europe and that we therefore need to resolve this issue. The commitment is an European Union one and we should remember that we are part of the club and cannot pick and choose our rules. The EU agreed the water framework directive targets for 2027. One may accept Europe is failing but, as I described in one of my interventions, Europe has the opportunity to take infringement proceedings against a member state.

These are slow and laborious, but ultimately Europe is generally successful in the challenge. With the derogation, Europe had a negotiation; there was an eyeball-to-eyeball conversation with the member states to ask them if they are doing enough. It always generated progress, but Europe deferring granting is something Ireland has to consider and one has to enable the Commission to support what ultimately is a Government decision to ask for the request in 2025. Asking the Commission to support the provision of a derogation in the absence of progress will make it eminently challenging.

To indicate how the structure goes, any member state is legally entitled to apply and that is not changing. It would, therefore, remain available even if water quality massively declined. A member state is entitled to apply, but there is not a requirement on the Commission to propose a derogation. The way the Commission works it is there are three presentations on water quality and a subsequent vote. There are four meetings of the nitrates committee. It takes a full year from start to finish. Having been involved since 2010, I have noticed that with respect to support for other member states, one must first of all get the Commission making the proposal, which means it must be happy, and then in its introduction for a vote it will say something like "We are now here to vote on Ireland's application. We have had long and difficult discussions with Ireland and we are happy we have agreed". That is an obvious message to a member state the derogation is effectively supported by the Commission and it will generally result in getting the required qualified majority vote. Thus a state is entitled to apply, but there is not an absolute requirement for the Commission to propose a vote and even if it does a state is then subject to qualified majority voting of all other member states. As such, there are a number of thresholds to meet to get the necessary support. We are just advising that when a state is on its own with that request it can be a lonely place and the state needs to come with a full deck of cards to play the best hand in 2025. That is how I put it to the group I am chairing. I say we must ensure everything we can do is done. Now, there was no time at any review previously where we did not think we were actually making progress here. As I am sure the Cathaoirleach will attest, the asks have been regular in terms of every four years and additionality of farmers on this. I do not resile from that.

Deputy Jackie Cahill resumed the Chair.

Senator Paul Daly

Going back to my initial point, if Mr. Callanan is saying the process can take a year, when is the Department putting in the application for 2025?

Mr. Bill Callanan

The current derogation ends at the end of 2025, so we need to be applying in late 2024 and commencing the process of the nitrates action programme. The process is very simple, namely, a state must have agreed its action programme with the Commission. Before a vote is even countenanced by the Commission, it requires a statutory instrument to give effect to the action programme. It will not accept a vote in advance of a state having its action plan agree with it, put into legislation and every step done. Then the state puts in for a vote on the derogation and must go back and amend the legislation to take account of that vote. It just shows this idea it is just a wink and a nod is not the way it works with the Commission.

Mr. David Flynn

To add to that on the process itself, the next nitrates action programme and every nitrates action programme applies, as Mr. Callanan was saying earlier, to all farmers in all types of enterprise and not just derogation farms. That nitrates action programme is subject to strategic environmental impact assessment and to appropriate assessment. These are statutory processes that will look at the impact of that programme and the water quality generally. That must be in place before the process Mr. Callanan is talking about. To re-emphasise, this is not just about derogation farmers and the intensive farmers, but about all farming.

Senator Paul Daly

The point I am making is-----

Mr. Bill Callanan

We are subject to review of that this year.

Senator Paul Daly

-----by the time the final decision is being made on 2025 we could be looking at water quality that is two years old and all the measures taken in between will not be taken into consideration. The Department puts in its application and it takes a year for it to be deliberated on. When the final decision is made in Europe, it could still be looking at EPA water quality reports that are practically two years old and all the actions taken by everybody in between cannot and possibly will not be taken into consideration, though they are working.

Mr. David Flynn

We will always be in retrospect to a certain extent with water quality because it takes time to go and take the sample, analyse it and get it to the next point.

Senator Paul Daly

Can the officials see how farmers would be very frustrated if they are taking on these actions and then hear it is a hit-and-miss job and that even if what we are doing is working it is probably not going to influence the next application?

Mr. David Flynn

I disagree, in that water quality is not the only aspect. We also have the agricultural catchment programme, ACP, which my colleagues from agriculture might talk about, and we have modelling from the EPA and from Teagasc. It about using that whole ecosystem of data and information to build a case around what type of measures will work for water quality - which we are legally required to do, whether we do derogation or not - and then whether a case can be built around what a derogation case would look like beyond 2025 should the water quality start improving.

Mr. Massey may wish to go into the ACP.

Mr. Ted Massey

Yes. Since 2008 the State has invested heavily in water quality monitory through the ACP, a research programme led by Teagasc. It looks at six agricultural catchments around the country. They are geographically dispersed and represent different soil types and different climates or weather. What the catchments have in common is they are all reasonably intensively farmed. They are representative of derogation farms in the case of the Timoleague catchment, of tillage land in the Castledockrell catchment in Wexford and then there is a further catchment in that county on heavier soil in Ballycanew. That illustrates the range of issues being considered. Within those catchments, samples are being taken every ten minutes in an automated process and gathering a lot of information. Teagasc is looking at the practices and working closely with the farmers as well. These are catchments that were specially selected. They are reasonably small catchments as well, so Teagasc could engage all farmers and get a good handle on what is happening at farm level so it could trace that through to look at the quality of both the groundwater on farms and the water quality in the streams leaving the catchment as well. There is a lot of data there. That feeds into our process as well. It feeds into our reports to the Commission every year and into our work on developing new measures as well, and developing overall policy.

Senator Paul Daly

Does anyone ever do a correlation or a comparison between the results that the Teagasc group is coming up with in those specific areas and what is in the EPA data and the maps for those same specific areas? Are the results coming in the same?

Mr. Bill Callanan

I have not done the comparison, but the general trends, as I understand it, are all quite similar in terms of the messages.

Senator Paul Daly

Would it not be a fruitful exercise?

Mr. Bill Callanan

I am sure somebody can-----

Senator Paul Daly

When the research has been done, it would just be a spot check to see if there was a glaring difference between either set of results for a specific area. That might highlight or help to highlight something.

Mr. David Flynn

It is important to be clear the EPA and Teagasc are both very much aware of the results coming out of each set of monitoring programmes. The Teagasc ACP is based on the six catchments, which are relatively small. The EPA monitoring programme is based on the national picture, so it is more complete but not as detailed. That is where the ACP has its benefit as it is very detailed, though it is focused on a smaller subset. I agree with Mr. Callanan that if one looks at the results coming from both - though I have not done a full assessment - they are identifying the same issues. Both show that in many cases the level of nutrients in our water is too high and that is the bottom line.

Senator Paul Daly

I will play devil's advocate and advance a worst-case scenario. Is there any contingency plan being worked on or thought about in the Department for such a scenario? The Chairman has highlighted the potential for two creameries in north Cork and Tipperary to go and the effect that would have on jobs, those areas, farmers' incomes and ultimately food security.

Is there a plan B if we cannot get the next one over the line?

Mr. Bill Callanan

To be clear, every farmer has options in terms of their overall opportunities. I was clear in my opening statement that nitrates are a measure of the amount of organic nitrogen applied, not present. If it was present, no pig farmer in the country could work because they have a lot of nitrogen, in particular. They are required to have the appropriate spread lands for those. Concerning the options available for farmers, realistically, number one is the question of additional land. Before-----

Senator Paul Daly

Mr. Callanan said it himself, that kills forestry and organics and everything else.

Mr. Bill Callanan

Senator Lombard challenged me on that on the issue of west Cork. I understand the challenge regarding availability of land. Number two, farmers will naturally move towards outsourcing the rearing of heifers, etc., to minimise that load and focus in particular on cows. Number three is the export of slurry and manures off the holding and the opportunity of linkages with tillage, for example. I have advocated for that; I chair a biomethane strategy working group. I see the likes of anaerobic digestion as having a potential role in this area at co-op level to facilitate the use of surplus manure in particular areas such as generating heat and energy and managing nutrients, if it has to move. I appreciate that there are costs associated with all of those but there are options. I accept some farmers would then be restricted when it is solely cows and, for example, not keeping any replacements, etc. We have to put it in the context that there are options for farmers. I appreciate that it is not as attractive as them saying they want to do it within their own holding and with their own farm; I accept that but we must be clear. I will give the committee an example. There are approximately 7,000 to 7,500 farmers in derogation in this country. There are 6,500 who are over 170, but not in derogation. They do that through the alternative measures I mentioned, whether that is moving slurry or securing temporary land, etc. They are not in derogation, even though they are over 170.

In the review two years ago, we moved to avoid a situation in which it was advantageous to a farmer to avoid derogation and have lesser conditionality on them. We deliberately moved to avoid that. It has always been our position that we would prefer a farmer over 170 to apply for derogation, to make it available and make them understand the additional conditionality of it. Two years ago, we moved to avoid that difference between the two. There are many farmers who farm above 170 outside of derogation, just as much as there are farmers in derogation. As I said, our history has been that derogation farmers are most engaged. They are involved in training and open days, etc., in terms of water quality; they will attend and they will be first at the door. Deputy Collins identified the additional things being done. Let us be honest about it: the use of trailing shoe technology was required first of derogation farmers and nobody else. They started the journey in low-emission slurry spreading as a requirement. There are now requirements for soil sampling, attending training and biodiversity action. There are many additional requirements for which they voluntarily signed up.

Senator Tim Lombard

Mr. Massey was in Timoleague last Monday. He went down to see the catchment farm, which is a wonderful operation that shows more than 20 farms working in conglomeration to produce information, which has been very valuable, since 2018. It involves a catchment of dairy cows, most of which are banding, pig units and many other issues. As Mr. Callanan will know from his past, it is probably the most productive part of west Cork in so many ways. Will Mr. Massey give an indication of where the nitrate levels have gone since 2018, based on his visit to west Cork last Monday?

Mr. Ted Massey

If the committee bears with me, I have a report from the catchments programme; I just need to put my hand on it. I have too many documents. Essentially, they have shown a decline in recent years. They have been stable for quite a while. The agricultural catchments programmes look at trends over a four-year period. They showed a decline last year.

Senator Tim Lombard

Was it quite dramatic last year?

Mr. Ted Massey

It was sufficient that it was a significant decline.

Senator Tim Lombard

Would that, in Mr. Massey's opinion, be probably one of the most productive parts of dairy in the county someone could ever come across?

Mr. Ted Massey

It is certainly a very intensively-farmed area. It is the catchment within the agricultural catchments programme with the highest number of derogation farms. They went from having their highest nitrate levels, I think, in 2018 and 2019, without putting my hand on the report-----

Senator Tim Lombard

That would be it.

Mr. Ted Massey

-----to having much lower levels last year, in 2022. However, the levels achieved last year were still over twice the desired level to achieve. While they are showing improvements, the level of nutrients is still too high, which people involved in the catchment programme would recognise as well.

Senator Tim Lombard

But the trend is-----

Mr. Ted Massey

The trend is going the right way.

Senator Tim Lombard

As Mr. Massey said, they were majority derogation farmers.

Mr. Ted Massey

They are, yes.

Senator Tim Lombard

To read between the lines, the derogation farm model has produced, now that the trend is going the right way.

Mr. Ted Massey

I have asked the catchments programme officials why that is, because they have seen improvements in the other catchments, but those other catchments did not show improvements in nitrate levels last year. The question arises: why is Timoleague different? There is one train of thought that there are more requirements on derogation farmers and, because they are engaging in that, it is driving the improvement.

Senator Tim Lombard

They turn up to events, they are well-trained, they do courses, they are informed and they use the trailing shoe. Because of that, it could be argued that the trend in Timoleague has gone one way since 2018.

Mr. Ted Massey

There are probably other factors as well. In fairness to the farmers in Timoleague, they are all engaged in driving improvements in water quality. There is possibly better engagement there than in other areas. There is also the weather impact. Last summer, there was a very severe drought in certain parts of the east and south east. While there was a drought in west Cork as well, it was not as severe. That also has an impact on nitrates in the water.

Senator Tim Lombard

In the two years - 2018 and last year - rainfall levels in our part of the world were somewhat similar. Nitrates in 2018 were absolutely off the Richter scale because of it. I would argue that the Timoleague experiment proved that better management was helpful in making sure the nitrates went one way, as so many farmers were involved in the actual process of being informed and doing courses, as well as the information from Teagasc, which changed dramatically. That is the point I am making in a very laboured way. I need to try to make that point, that derogation farmers who were tuned in saw a major decrease from one dry year in 2018 to another last year. That is a significant point. Does Mr. Massey agree?

Mr. Ted Massey

I do. I also agree with the Senator's point about better management. It is not just about load in terms of the stocking rate or the application of nutrients, it is about how they are applied to the land, the timing and the rate of application as well. The whole idea-----

Senator Tim Lombard

Should the question be, how do we engage, not the 6,500 derogation farmers, but the other farming community? Should that not be the debate?

Mr. Ted Massey

It should and I am on the record saying this is an issue for all farmers. I often go to farmers and perhaps it is part of the Irish psyche, but it is always someone else's fault or problem. It is an issue for all farmers - derogation, non-derogation, livestock or arable - all farmers have a role to play in improving water quality. That is why we have brought all sectors together in the agriculture water quality working group.

Senator Tim Lombard

To change the narrative a bit, dairy and stocking is one issue, but tillage will also be part of this debate.

What will be the proposals? We have seen cover crops coming on board and there are different approaches. If there are new proposals in respect of the tillage industry, what will they be?

Mr. Ted Massey

In the current nitrates action programme, we introduced requirements around shallow cultivation post harvest. They are applicable in 14 counties, targeted on those counties where nitrates reduction measures are seen as a priority. We have also introduced wider buffer strips in the arable situation, particularly for late-harvested crops such as maize, sugar beet and fodder beet where there is a risk of run-off of sediment from the fields post harvest.

Not to prejudge what comes from the interim review, but something that could drive real improvements in the tillage sector would be further application of cover crops and catch crops post harvest. As the crops are senescing at this time of year, they are not taking up any more nitrogen. There is a volume of nitrogen left in the soil, but if there is nothing growing and taking it up, it is at risk of being lost as we move into the winter.

Senator Tim Lombard

I have two more questions. The report is on nitrates and phosphates. The map is clear on where nitrates and phosphates are. Will Mr. Flynn indicate the plan to deal with the phosphate issue?

Mr. David Flynn

Phosphate behaves differently in the landscape. What you want to do is put in place measures that catch the overland flow. Essentially, the phosphorous attaches to the soil particles.

Senator Tim Lombard

Nitrates areas and phosphate areas are dramatically different on the map.

Mr. David Flynn

Is the Senator referring to the map on page 21?

Senator Tim Lombard

Indeed.

Mr. David Flynn

These tend to be the heavier and less free-flowing soils. The measures in question are buffer strips located at low-lying areas of fields to catch overland flow. As regards the proposals, regulatory buffer strips are coming in through the regulatory system. There are also supports for putting measures in place through the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, strategic plan. The current regulations set out what is required of those areas, but an interim review is also under way. It will consider any additional measures that might be required.

Senator Tim Lombard

Who is involved in the interim review?

Mr. David Flynn

Essentially, two interim reviews are being carried out simultaneously. As part of the fifth nitrates action programme, we committed to a mid-term review for the reasons that some people have cited, for example, the lag in water quality. That review is being carried out on the entire nitrates action programme and is led by us in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. When the application for the derogation was made, there was a requirement for an interim review that examined the question of 220 kg versus 250 kg. The requirement is for the 220 kg plus additional measures. This is essentially the first review I mentioned. We are running both reviews concurrently. They are being led by us along with colleagues from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the nitrates expert group. We now have the benefit of the input from the Minister, Deputy McConalogue's group, which is chaired by Mr. Callanan.

Senator Tim Lombard

Two more questions and I will be gone, a Chathaoirligh. My colleague, Senator Paul Daly, mentioned how the EPA report had been put together and dealt with. The committee needs to invite the EPA to appear before us at some stage. I know that the EPA follows EU guidelines, but was the report peer reviewed by an external organisation in terms of its technical approach?

Mr. Bill Callanan

That is a question for the EPA.

Senator Tim Lombard

My final question is on how we will try to deal with this issue at the European level. Mr. Callanan gave us a good idea of the process and majority voting and how the Commission essentially needs to give approval before the matter can go up for majority vote, if that is a fair assessment. Mr. Callanan might indicate which individuals in the Commission need to give that approval. I believe four people are involved. Mr. Callanan stated that his Department had invited them to Ireland. Judging from what he has said, we have not received a response.

Mr. Bill Callanan

No.

Senator Tim Lombard

Perhaps the committee, the Minister or even the Taoiseach should formally invite them to Ireland so that we can show them what we do. This is a serious issue. If Mr. Callanan does not get a response, should we ask our political entities to formulate a request or should it be done through the Civil Service entity?

Mr. Bill Callanan

I have great respect for the democratic process, so I would never curtail this committee if its ambition was to invite those individuals. We will continue to invite them. We set out a good agenda in that regard. A number of members of that team have come to Ireland over the years to see what work is being done in Ireland. There has been a change in personnel, though, and they have not been to Ireland. We have always tried to engage. The Senator will know of colleagues who have worked at the Commission on building relationships and an understanding of the Irish situation. We have detached national experts who work in the Commission to advise people on the Irish circumstances. We will continue to invite people, but it is a matter for the committee if it wishes to pursue the matter.

Senator Tim Lombard

Perhaps we might discuss this matter at our next meeting.

An Cathaoirleach

We will discuss it when we finish this session.

Senator Tim Lombard

Thank you.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

My first question is probably for Mr. Flynn. Do we know for sure whether the inorganic nitrogen output of soils is directly correlated with the end concentration in rivers?

Turning to Mr. Callanan, there are farmers on derogation who have 500 to 700 cows. Was there any attempt to try to protect farmers with smaller herds, for example, 100 cows? We hear of farmers who have to go from 80 cows down to 60. Banding came in this year and now this will be implemented. It will put pressure on land. There is no point in saying it will not. The Minister of State with responsibility for forestry did not know what was happening in forestry, so no tree is being planted. If trees start being planted again, pressure will increase and there will be a woeful grab for land, with some people trying to rewet, others trying to sow trees and others trying to cover themselves in terms of banding and the derogation. The pressures on land will be ferocious. We are not making any more of it, after all. Did the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine speak to the Commission about trying to protect what I would call the family farm to some extent?

Turning back to Mr. Flynn, has this report been analysed, for example, where samples were taken from? Can we get that information? I see from the map where there is phosphorous. I see that Galway is pretty good as a county in general, but I also see that there a couple of spots. I would love to know where they are and whether there is a reason for them. Is there more information we can get? Looking at a map is grand, but there is not even a townland on it. Can all of that information be sourced and do we have access to it? What methodology was used?

I am involved in a group water scheme. Due to EU standards, the quality of the water going into houses now is different than it was 15 or 20 years ago. Are we saying that, although the quality level was good then, the requirement is so high now that the old level would not be good today?

Is that a problem or is it being taken into account?

Mr. David Flynn

In terms of nitrogen and its appearance in rivers and estuaries, at a landscape scale, it is broadly related to the input. However, it is highly variable at local level.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Do we know?

Mr. David Flynn

Sure we do. It is through programmes like the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, the Geological Survey of Ireland and the agricultural catchments programme, ACP, which is looking in extreme detail at catchments and how nitrogen phosphorous behaves. In terms of the things that influence it, there is the rainfall; the topography of the local area, such as the slope of it; the soil type, for example, whether it is heavy or light soil; and the bedrock that underlies that. None of those can be controlled. It is what it is. What can be controlled is the load. Depending on those other factors, the load has an impact. Farm practice can also be controlled - how and when that load is applied. They are the criteria. We said earlier that it is highly variable across Ireland. At a landscape scale, we are seeing the issues.

I go back to what Senator Lombard said earlier about Timoleague. There are hugely positive results coming out of the Timoleague catchment that are very favourable and look very promising. They still have a long way to go. They are at the lowest level since 2009. It is about 5 mg per litre. It is still twice what you would want in the estuary and higher again than what you would want in the river. The issue with that is we are not seeing that replicated in the national data sets across the country. The question to look at then from the ACP is what is happening in Timoleague that could be replicated through regulation or other voluntary measures at a landscape scale that would make a difference in terms of keeping that trend going. As I said, there is quite a lot going in that.

In terms of the data sets-----

Senator Tim Lombard

It is measured slightly differently compared with how the EPA measures. It is measured every ten minutes.

Mr. David Flynn

Yes.

Senator Tim Lombard

How many times does the EPA measure the body of water?

Mr. David Flynn

It depends. There is a surveillance programme. There are different types of monitoring programmes. It could be as frequently as six months or as infrequently as every three years.

Senator Tim Lombard

That is-----

Mr. David Flynn

That is an entirely different monitoring-----

Senator Tim Lombard

I realise this is a question for the EPA.

Mr. David Flynn

The EPA follows best international practice on this. There is a requirement to follow the criteria set out by Europe in terms of the monitoring and sampling. There is best practice at the laboratory. In terms of the-----

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Is Mr. Flynn telling me some are monitoring every ten minutes while the EPA might be only sampling a thing once a year, once every six months or once every three years?

Mr. David Flynn

It is primarily a question for the EPA to answer, but yes, it is a different-----

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

To me, that is no system.

Mr. David Flynn

The ACP process is a research project that is highly intensive, requires a high level of engagement in the catchment and is costly. The purpose of that is to be a test bed to be looked at for the rest of the country. That informs the practice. To replicate that at national scale would not be feasible. It is probably more a matter for the EPA to comment on but the EPA monitoring programme follows the requirements of the Commission. There are requirements around sampling, which would be international best practice, and requirements around laboratory analysis. A lot of the data are available as open data on catchments.ie. Without speaking for it, I am sure the EPA would be more than happy to provide whatever data are required.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I spoke about group water schemes supplying water 20 years ago and supplying it now. With regard to testing, is it at a higher standard now? I know that when water is supplied to people, it is a completely different ball game. It is chalk and cheese compared with 20, ten or even five years ago. The standard keeps going up.

Mr. David Flynn

The standard does keep going up.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Is that the same so that if we had the same standard as we had ten years ago, we would still be in trouble and classed as bold boys?

Mr. David Flynn

In terms of drinking water, the standard has increased. A brand new directive has just been transposed into Irish law, so standards have certainly risen. What we are talking about here in terms of the nitrates directive is a 1991 directive and standards have not changed since then.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

That is all I wanted to know.

An Cathaoirleach

As we gone over the two-hour duration of the meeting, I am obliged to ask the witnesses if they want a break. We have about three further contributors.

Mr. Bill Callanan

The Deputy asked about the split. To date, we have not split between larger and smaller. In terms of caution, and we can get data in terms of this if the Deputy so wishes, the average dairy herd is between 90 and 100 cows. This is off the top of my head so I do not want to be absolute about it, but in terms of the figures I saw previously, there were about 1,200 farms with more than 200 cows. Against that number, which is 16,500 or 17,000 farms, those larger farms are very visible but they are exception rather than the rule in terms of Irish dairy production, which involves that 90 to 100-cow herd.

Deputy Martin Browne

I apologise as I missed much of the meeting. I will only ask one question. The EPA's findings were communicated to the Commission. Will the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine's representatives give us their view of how reflective it is in terms of the measures that have been taken by farmers to address the matter and in terms of the time needed for the impact of those measures to be realised in actual data? Is this report representative of that? What are the Department's thoughts on whether this accurately reflects the distinction between agriculture as the source and sources from elsewhere?

Mr. Bill Callanan

As my colleague set out at the beginning, the conditionality and the derogation effectively prescribed the data sources used by the EPA in terms of this. It is a blunt instrument. Let us be honest about it: there are some anomalies that appear to come out of this in terms of some areas where there is quite intensive farming, and there is no doubting that. What I challenge the group is, in terms of the criticism of the 250 to 220, whatever may be said about those areas that should be included or those areas that are subject to phosphorous as the main issue, we cannot in any way resile from the fact that, looking at either the absolute figures, the overall nitrates levels, the trends or whatever test would be put on to those areas that are predominants of derogation, which are the south and east, that would not come up with the same general thrust regarding, effectively, nutrients, particularly nitrates, being too high in those areas. That is the simple reality. We can get lost in terms of whether the EPA data set is comprehensive or full or whatever way we want to test it. Looking at it over a period, the south east and the south west in particular and a certain amount of the midlands are all well in excess of those thresholds for the achievement of good status, which is the water framework standard. Is the Department mindful of that? I do not run the EPA in terms of how it does its business, but it certainly produced a very good explanation in terms of how it had taken the conditions as prescribed by the Commission and applied them to its own data set to come up with this report.

We have to accept its bona fides with regard to the data Mr. Massey has identified. We do not have a comparison to the agricultural catchments programme, ACP, but the key messages are certainly the same. The nutrient load in some of these catchments is too high. That is the unfortunate reality. I would prefer if it was otherwise but that is the reality of the matter in the context of discussions on a derogation. It is a derogation from the conditions applied under the directive not a derogation from the ambitions of the directive.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

I welcome the witnesses to the committee. One of them said that the State has invested in water modelling but it has not invested in treatment plants around our towns and villages. This cut to the nitrates derogation is going to especially hurt and affect small family dairy farmers. One such farmer was on to me earlier this evening. He is milking 60 cows and his Teagasc adviser told him that, with the new proposals, he could be asked to reduce his herd from 60 to 42, a loss of 18. It was reported in yesterday's Farming Independent that many farmers will have to reduce their herds by 25 cows, a cut or reduction of 29%. Are the witnesses aware of that effect? There is something fellas cannot understand. This man who was in contact with me has been told that he will have to cut the 29 tonnes of fertiliser he normally got to fertilise his farm down to 12 tonnes.

One of the witnesses mentioned how fellas could increase their land holdings by either renting or buying. A new dimension is now coming into play in land sales. The environmentalists and the Department are purchasing farms for environmental reasons so these farms are not available. Land is getting very scarce and, as Deputy Fitzmaurice said, they are not making any more of it.

Farmers are now being hit on three fronts. They are being hit by the nitrates derogation, the proposed culling of cows and the rewetting. Has any thought been given to farmers' incomes and the loss of their spending in the local community, whether in the shop, in stores or on services? More importantly, has any thought been given to food security, the cost of food and the predicament many households find themselves in with that cost? There could be a scarcity of food. At the same time, we read that the water quality in Ireland is much higher than in Denmark, Flanders and other areas. What measures will our country or the Department take with regard to dairy or beef products coming from Brazil? We are all under the one sky after all. When we look up, we are all looking at the moon at night and at the sun in the morning from the same direction. We need to be aware of what is happening. When we get rid of a fella's cows, we should be aware that he did not put them up overnight. It took generations to build them up and for him to get to the position he is in today. We have to remember that farmers have spent fortunes, millions of euro, inside the farm gate.

When talking about water, one of the witnesses said that it is different water but all water is the same to me. Even if the State and the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications are not interested in treatment plants or talking about the damage sewage from urban areas is doing, I am worried about it because I have been fighting the case for years. Many towns, villages and settlements in Kerry, including Scartaglin, Currow and other places, do not even have a treatment plant.

We are talking about driving these farmers out of production and making them unviable because, if a fella's herd is cut from 60 to 42, his farm is not viable. His son is not going to come back from wherever he is getting his education to try to get on top of things. He will not come back to the farm I am talking about where that man was trying to rear a family with 60 cows. The young fella will not come back for 42 because, as he goes on, he will have to increase production. We also have to remember that the same departmental officials advised the then Minister, Deputy Coveney, to increase the production of milk back in 2012 or 2013. They advised him that milk was the new white gold, yet here we are, a short few years later, telling farmers that they will have to cut back and that the nitrates derogations is being cut from 250 kg per hectare to 230 kg or 220 kg. We have to be realistic. I ask the officials to take this message back to their bosses because the people out there are outraged at what is going on. We have to be fair to our own people. They are the people who have kept communities and rural areas going for generations. I thank the Cathaoirleach. I know it has been a long evening but I stuck it out to make my contribution.

An Cathaoirleach

I will just make a few points before I go back to the witnesses to allow them to sum up. This report is going to be critical to this argument. "Argument" is probably the wrong word. It is a battle to save our derogation. The methodology the EPA has used to compile this report will have to be subject to some more scrutiny. I do not expect the officials to pass comment on this because it would not be a fair question to ask but if we take the way water in estuaries is measured, I understand the EPA has used the winter median method, which is a far more severe method of measuring water quality in estuaries. Averages are used throughout the report. An increase of 0.2 mg/l is taken to indicate a deterioration of water quality whereas the EU states that a variation of 1 mg/l indicates that water quality is stable. That interpretation is five times more severe than that used by the Commission.

I suggest that we invite the EPA before the committee. I know we have only one week left in the term but I suggest we invite the EPA in the week after, when the Dáil is in recess, to discuss the compilation of this report and the methodologies it has used and to have a very frank exchange, such as we have had with the Department this evening, on this report because it is going to be critical in our battle to secure our derogation.

As Senator Lombard has said and as Mr. Callanan has referred to, there is a four-member committee in the Commission that will be interpreting the case we put forward. I suggest that, as an Oireachtas committee, we invite that committee before us. If we get the privilege of that committee coming before us, we could organise to show the members the improvements made in the regulation of our derogation farmers and that those regulations will bear fruit fairly quickly. The point Senator Lombard made about Timoleague is really a case in point. There is a very serious concentration of farmers with derogations there and the water quality is improving very significantly.

I did not want to be too argumentative when Mr. Callanan made a point earlier. He talked about dairy farmers taking up land to outrear their heifers. He was talking about land that is probably farmed extensively at the moment, and bringing it into an intensive farming situation. That will bring its own issues.

I thank the officials, who have taken a long series of questions from members today. I made a fairly long-winded speech at the outset of the meeting. As I said, I accept fully there is an environmental argument we have to win here, but the economic consequences for our country are huge. It could do very severe damage to our dairy industry. As I mentioned earlier and Deputy Healy-Rae said a moment ago, not so long ago we were investing heavily in the sector. There was investment and grant aids were provided by Government for farm restructuring and at processing level. From my point of view, it will be disastrous for the rural economy if we are not able to maintain our derogation. I am repeating myself, but even the cost of processing milk will increase very significantly, which will hinder the ability of processors to pay a milk price to dairy farmers, whether they are in derogation or not. At that, I will conclude the discussion if the committee is in agreement that we proceed in the manner I have outlined. Agreed.

Mr. Bill Callanan

We thank the committee for the engagement today. I have three or four comments. First, I want to be crystal clear that both Departments understand the implications. I appreciate the economics of it and I have also referred to the environmental elements of it. My main message is there is a clear understanding of the implications. Second, to be fair for farmers, we have to recognise the contribution and work they are doing in relation to this. That is evident from any engagement I have with them. However, it is not I who will decide this in 2025; it is water quality standards. We have a collective opportunity to work on that over the next couple of years. I am cautious of the risk of today's debate losing sight of the bigger picture, which is our position in 2025 and how we can ensure we are in a good place in negotiations then, because we will be isolated in terms of the ask. Government will have to work with and support farmers, farmers will have to work with us, and industry, including co-ops, etc., will have to be engaged in the process over the next two years to make sure we are in the best possible position at that time.

An Cathaoirleach

We will suspend while we get ready for the second session. Mr. Callanan has asked that we take a proposal on the regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the sustainable use of plant protection products first as he will deal with that as well. If the committee is agreeable with that, we will take that first before we deal with forestry. Is that agreed? Agreed. It is to be hoped that will not take as long as the previous debate. I do not think it will take long. The meeting is suspended while we go into the second session.

Sitting suspended at 8.13 p.m. and resumed at 8.50 p.m.