Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 14 Feb 2024

Compliance with the Nitrates Directive and Implications for Ireland: Discussion

An Cathaoirleach

I send my best wishes and those of the committee to Rebecca Walsh who is part of our secretariat and who had a fairly serious car crash at the weekend. We wish her a speedy recovery and hope she will be back to work as soon as it is feasible and that her injuries will mend. I also wish Denis Drennan and Eamon Carroll the best in their terms as president and deputy president of the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, ICMSA. It is their first time here at an Oireachtas meeting since they took up their respective positions so I wish both of them the very best of luck.

I remind members and witnesses to turn off their mobile phones. Before we begin, I bring the following to their attention: witnesses giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that they have a full defence in any defamation action in respect of anything they say at the meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed by the Chair to cease giving evidence on an issue. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded 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 want to give evidence from locations outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts. They may consider it appropriate to take legal advice in this regard. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses, outside of 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 House 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 utterances of members participating online at a committee meeting when that participation is within the parliamentary precincts. Members may not participate online in a public meeting from outside the parliamentary precincts and any attempt to do so will result in said member having his or her online access removed.

The purpose of today's meeting is examination of compliance with the nitrates directive and implications for Ireland. At this session, the committee will hear from representatives of the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, and the Irish Creamery and Milk Suppliers Association, ICMSA. We are joined from the IFA by its president, Mr. Francie Gorman, Mr. John Murphy, environment and rural affairs chair and Mr. Tadhg Buckley, director of policy; and from ICMSA, its president, Mr. Denis Drennan, deputy president, Mr. Eamon Carroll, and Mr. John Enright, general secretary. They are all very welcome to today's committee meeting. Their opening statements have been circulated to members. I will allow each organisation five minutes to read its opening statement and then we will proceed to a question and answer session.

This is the first of a series of meetings on the nitrates derogation. The committee took the decision to hold a series of meetings on nitrates and the implications for the country. We intend to compile a report at the end of those meetings. On 1 January, the country dropped from 250 kg N/ha to 220 kg N/ha and there is serious concern and anxiety about the review coming at the end of 2025 and that the country be in the best position to put its case forward for the retention of the 220 organic nitrogen limit. The committee intends to devote significant time during this Oireachtas session to compiling that report as we feel it is a very important piece of work to put together a viable case for this country's retention of its derogation. Our guests are the first of a series of witnesses we will have here. We will have five or six meetings and then we will compile a report that the committee will take to the Commissioner in Brussels. We look forward to hearing what both organisations have to say on the subject. I will ask Mr. Gorman to go first and then Mr. Drennan.

Mr. Francie Gorman

I thank the committee for inviting the IFA to address it today. I am joined by John Murphy, chair of our environment and rural affairs committee, and Tadhg Buckley, director of policy. I will address the six questions that we were asked. First, what are the anticipated economic effects for the agricultural sector that would result from a further decrease to the nitrates derogation? Since the publication of the EU Commission decision on Ireland’s current nitrates derogation in April 2022, we have relentlessly highlighted the impact of reduced stocking rate thresholds on the entire agriculture sector. IFA analysis estimates that the reduction to a maximum stocking rate of 220 kg organic nitrogen will have a cumulative sector cost of up to €60 million per annum. A complete loss of the nitrates derogation would have massive ramifications both for farmers and the downstream dairy processing sector. The IFA estimates that the removal of the derogation entirely will reduce dairy income for the impacted farmers by an average of up to €23,000 per annum; a huge drop given that average dairy family farm income for the past five years was €87,000 per annum.

The wider economic impact of the derogation is even more significant. Using Dairy Industry Ireland analysis of the economic contribution of the dairy sector, the IFA estimates that a loss of the derogation could result in more than 1,100 job losses and a potential economic impact of in excess of €1 billion per annum when all direct and indirect factors are accounted for. Some mistakenly think this is only a dairy issue. In reality, any changes to the derogation impact all land-based sectors given the hugely disruptive impact it has on the land market. Drystock and tillage farmers as well as smaller dairy farmers are now being outcompeted in the land market by larger dairy farmers, who can justify paying a higher price for land rental to try to maintain their business at current levels. In the cases where drystock and tillage farmers do manage to retain rented or leased land, this is generally coming at a higher cost.

Approximately 850,000 ha of land are rented or leased in Ireland, according to the CSO. An average increase of €100 per ha, roughly €40 per acre, in land rental is an added cost of €100 million per annum to the farming sector. This is effectively a transfer from productive farmers who spend money in the rural economy to inactive landowners whose contribution is significantly less. Between 2022 and 2023, Ireland’s cereal area declined by 16,000 ha and now constitutes less than 6% of Ireland’s agricultural land. Further changes to the derogation will inevitably lead to a significant further decline in this area.

Turning to the anticipated social effects for the agricultural sector that would result from a further decrease to the nitrates derogation, we estimate that 3,000 farmers are directly affected by the existing reduction to 220 kg N/ha, another 7,000 farmers are estimated to be directly impacted if stocking rates were capped at 170 kg N/ha. We estimate that approximately 55% of milk supplied comes from farms stocked above 170 kg N/ha. If these farms had to reduce milk output, this would result in increased costs and job losses at processing level as outlined earlier. The removal of the derogation entirely will jeopardise the viability of thousands of farmers across all sectors. This would have a huge knock-on social impact on rural Ireland.

As outlined earlier, the removal will directly impact dairy farmers but will have very substantial knock-on impacts on other sectors due to the disruption to the land market. It will also potentially impact the pig and poultry sectors due to increased levels of slurry nutrients that dairy farmers will seek to export, making it more difficult for pig and poultry farmers to find customers for their slurry nutrients.

A removal of the derogation will also have consequences for Ireland’s climate action plan and associated targets. The climate action plan sets out numerous land-based targets, which include an increase in organic farming area of 340,000 ha; an increase in area under tillage of 51,500 ha; the requirement of 115,000 ha for anaerobic digestion; and reduced farming intensity on drained organic soils requiring another 80,000 ha. We also need 68,000 ha of additional land under afforestation. That brings the total land requirement for the climate action plan of an extra 654,000 ha.

The IFA estimates that the removal of the derogation will result in dairy farmers requiring 86,000 ha just to maintain their current dairy cow numbers. To put this in context, this is approximately 1.2 times the size of the entire county of Carlow. This additional land requirement is not factored into climate action plan targets and, therefore, removing the derogation will make the achievement of Ireland's climate action plan much more difficult.

The third question was if it is possible to maintain Ireland’s nitrates derogation at its current level, while ensuring that there are improvements to Ireland’s water quality. We believe there is. Despite the narrative that is out there, the impact of stocking rate on nitrates loss is not proportionate to the load of nitrogen applied to the land. Factors such as soil type, hydromorphology and weather play a significant role in the rate of nitrates loss from our farms in addition to the source load of N. Teagasc research has shown that a stocking rate reduction to 220 kg N/ha would only reduce N loss to 1 m by approximately 4 kg/ha - a minimal reduction when we consider that the influence of year, such as bad weather patterns, can impact nitrogen loss by a lot more. Tailoring management practices to the specific needs of a local catchment as demonstrated in the agricultural sustainability support and advisory programme, ASSAP, is much more beneficial for water quality than blanket regulatory changes to stocking rate.

The fourth question asked was: is the nitrates action programme, NAP, fit for purpose in protecting Ireland’s water quality? The ambition of the NAP has accelerated in the latest two reviews of the programme with farmers obliged to undertake up to an additional 30 measures on farms to protect water quality. What the nitrates action programme and Government agencies fail to acknowledge is the realistic lag times that exist for these management practices to demonstrate improvements in water quality. The mitigation of nitrates loss to water can vary from seconds to decades upon the application of a new management practice.

Work needs to be carried out to outline estimated lag times in our most vulnerable catchments. It also must be considered that the expansion in the dairy herd in the past ten years has not resulted in a proportionate decline in water quality. In fact, at national level water quality trends show minimal increases in nitrates, similar to what would be expected in year-to-year variation alone. On a related issue, the European Commission is currently undertaking a European-wide public consultation on the nitrates directive. It is critical Ireland uses this opportunity to stress the critical importance of the derogation to us and also emphasise its long-term retention is vital to our industry.

The fifth question is whether additional supports are required to ensure farmers can be compliant with the nitrates action programme. The Teagasc agricultural catchments programme has shown that 50% of nutrients are lost in 25% of the year, namely the winter season. To mitigate the risk of nitrogen loss at this time of year, we need ample slurry storage capacity on all farms. Currently, only farmers who are importing slurry can avail of the increased grant-aid rate of 70%. To grapple with this issue 70% grant aid needs to be made available to all farms, in combination with the continued provision of accelerated capital allowances for slurry storage and the ability to continue to reclaim VAT on such structures. However, investing in slurry storage is a long-term investment and farmers therefore need certainty on how many dairy cows they will be milking in four years’ time if we are going to see them make that long-term investment in slurry storage. Obtaining planning permission for such investments is getting increasingly more difficult with many in need of additional slurry storage denied planning permission. This is an area that has to be addressed and must be rectified.

The sixth question is whether additional resources are required to ensure the measures required by the nitrates action programme are adequately enforced. The agriculture water quality group has finalised in its recommendations that the local authorities are adequately resourced to undertake at least 4,500 targeted water quality risk-based farm inspections per annum as part of the national agricultural inspection programme led by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. However, there is a need for the application of the regulations to be harmonised across the local authorities and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Where issues are found during an inspection, the penalty applied should be proportionate to the breach by the farmer. We endorse this recommendation.

I will finish up with some other considerations. Without discounting our own responsibilities to improve water quality, wastewater treatment plants and urban runoff via storm overflows play a significant role in determining the water quality of our catchments. The latest EPA urban wastewater treatment report in 2022 outlined an 84% increase in the number of breakdowns in wastewater treatment plants since 2019. Focusing solely on farming will not ensure we protect water quality appropriately. Pressures from urban wastewater and similar sources must also be addressed.

In conclusion, it is difficult to underestimate how vital it is that Ireland retains its nitrates derogation for this decade and beyond. Its removal would have a massive direct economic impact on the dairy sector, but also very significant indirect impacts on other farming sectors, in particular the tillage sector which relies heavily on rented or leased land. In addition, its removal would have a substantial long-term economic impact on the wider rural Irish economy. Furthermore, it will also make the achievement of Ireland’s climate action plan targets more difficult to attain. Removing the derogation will not automatically result in improvements in water quality, but the economic damage it will do is guaranteed. That is why we cannot countenance its removal. It would be remiss of me not to say at this stage that this is a red-line issue for the IFA. We must retain our derogation, with the ambition of going back to the 250 if water quality can show that can be justified. Once again, I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to address the committee and we look forward to questions in due course.

Mr. Denis Drennan

I thank members for the opportunity to address them. We are delighted they are taking this as such a serious issue, which it is for all of rural Ireland. As members will have seen in the past number of weeks, farmers our there are hugely frustrated. We have a declining CAP budget, output prices do not reflect the cost of producing food to an EU standard and we also have the threat of the Mercusor agreement hanging over us, where we may end up with substandard food competing with the very high-standard food produced within the EU, which is a huge contradiction within EU policy.

To address the questions the committee has laid out for us, on the economic side of this, we have 17,000 farms. We are going to address mainly the dairy farmers because they are the majority of people who are in derogation. By no means do those farmers meet the image a lot of people have of owning 300 to 500 cows. The average herd size in Ireland is 90. It is a unique system in Europe. It is a very grass-based system where cows are out probably ten months of the year and 95% of the feed that comes to the cow is produced on-farm as grass. The effect of the derogation cuts so far, if we take the average-size Irish farm of 35 ha or 87 acres, means somebody in band 3 stocked to the maximum, who was up to now allowed carry 98 cows, which is more than necessary to support the family farm, has reduced his or her herd to 73 cows. Were we to lose the derogation completely and go back to 170 kg N/ha, that farmer would end up in a position where the maximum number of cows he or she could milk would be 56, which would deem that farm unviable. A bigger issue is the competitive advantage we have above everybody else in the world is our ability to grow grass. A farmer in that situation, using the latest technology and using ryegrass and clover mixtures or multispecies swards as in the trials carried out in both Moorepark and Johnstown Castle, is well capable of growing enough grass for 98 cows as things stand. Our competitive advantage and the reason we produce the most sustainable beef and dairy in the world is our ability to grow grass but we need to have the livestock to eat that grass and there is no point in being in a position grow the grass if we do not have the livestock too. The economic situation is if we lose the derogation from 220 kg N/ha any further, we end up with a huge number of farms that are no longer viable.

If we move to question No. 2 dealing with the social implications of that, a huge number of the smaller towns and villages are depending on farming. Charleville, County Cork or Ballyragget, County Kilkenny do not have Intel, Microsoft or any industry there. There is no other industry in those towns except farming and dairying and they are the economic drivers of those small towns. It would be catastrophic not only for the farmers in those areas but also the towns, villages and rural communities that are supported by the industry. We also have a huge issue with generational renewal. I spoke to a farmer on the way up whose son has decided to stay at home. They increased to 80 cows and now they are going to be faced with reducing to 63 cows. The son is regretting staying home and we are going to have huge pressure coming on farmers for sons and daughters or the next generation taking over. The directive will have huge implications for generational renewal.

The third question was whether we can maintain the derogation and also improve water quality. The answer is, "Absolutely". The Teagasc modelling has shown the cut from 250 kg N/ha down to 220 kg N/ha has had minimal effect on nitrogen leaching, so what is the purpose? Is this a water quality issue or not? If we look at the agricultural catchments programme work it has carried out over the past 14 years, it shows loading, which is the animal numbers per hectare, has one of the lesser implications as regards nitrogen leaching. Hydromorphology, soil type and weather events are far more relevant to nitrogen leaching than cattle numbers on a farm, so we really need to look at whether we are putting the most effective measures in place. If we look at the results from the Timoleague catchment, animal numbers have increased yet the water quality has also increased in that situation.

The fourth question is whether the NAP is fit for purpose. The plan has become too complex. There have been more than 50 more regulations enforced on derogation farmers on top of the normal regulations for farming. It is becoming unworkable and unmanageable. What we really need is a catchment-by-catchment assessment to see what issues are causing the problems in each catchment and to address those specific problems in each catchment.

There is no point in having blanket enforcement or rules across the whole country if those rules are not relevant to the catchment and if the issue that those rules are meant to sort out is not affecting the catchment. We need catchment-by-catchment assessment and we need to address the specific problems within those catchments with relevant rules.

I will move on to supports. As Mr. Gorman said, slurry storage is a major problem on farms but we also have a complete clogging of the planning permission system at the moment. We have everybody and anybody in a position where they can object to planning permissions, and people living 300 miles away can object to planning based on their distance from a special protection area, SPA, or a special area of conservation, SAC, which is ridiculous. Many NGOs are making a full-time job of objecting to farmers doing the right thing. On the one hand, a part of an organisation is saying that farmers need to spread slurry at the right times and have the proper facilities in place, yet, on the other, another wing of the same organisation can object and can become serial objectors to people who want to do the right thing.

At the moment, planning permission can take anything up to 18 months, even in a straightforward case. That is completely unacceptable for people who want to do the right thing. The targeted agriculture modernisation scheme, TAMS, system is clogged up. Since the closing of the first tranche of TAMS and the new cap on 30 June last year, approximately 2,500 farmers want to engage with and avail of TAMS, although, admittedly, it is a TAMS where reference costs are completely outdated and that needs to be addressed. Nonetheless, more than 2,500 farmers were willing to do the right thing and put the slurry storage in place, having gone through the planning system, yet less than one third of those have been approved nine months later. If water quality is a priority for the Government, we need to see a complete unchoking of the planning system and the TAMS system, and we need a fast track in planning, even for planning exemptions where a farmer is building onto an existing farmyard. We cannot have a situation where getting planning permission takes up to 18 months and approval for TAMS takes another nine or ten months. People are almost three years in the system before they can put a shovel in the ground and start to do the right thing, which is unacceptable.

VAT is also causing huge issues at the moment, in particular the refusal of the Department of Finance to refund tax that could be reclaimed until now. We ask that VAT be refundable or exempt on any item that is of environmental benefit, be it for air quality or water quality, and it is water quality that we are focusing on here.

There is also a need for an expansion of the agri-climate rural environment scheme, ACRES, for which 50,000 applicants have been accepted. If we were to go back 30 years, there were 70,000 people in the rural environment protection scheme, REPS, which was far more valuable back then, with an average £5,000 payment, whereas ACRES has a €6,000 payment. What is the buying power or relevance of €6,000 now versus £5,000 30 years ago?

ASSAP is proving very successful in improving water quality throughout the country. We need further resources and supports so more ASSAP advisers are available from Teagasc and the co-ops, funded by the Government. The scheme is proving that one-to-one advice for farmers, and making farmers aware of the right and wrong things to do, is very successful.

On the sixth question, which addresses the resources for inspections, there have been a huge number of inspections between derogation inspections, BISS inspections, local authority inspections and SDAS inspections every 18 months. The risk of inspection is huge and there are also satellite inspections. What we really need is proper engagement and advice on a one-to-one basis for farmers. The lack of respect shown to farmers with the derogation cut announced in November, where farmers had to have their stocking rate right by 1 January, was unacceptable. If Irish Water causes a problem with municipal wastewater, it has up to 20 years to sort out the problems, but farmers get two months. How can that be justified?

We have rules coming out of our ears but what we really need is the reassessment of the current rules to see if they are fit for purpose and if they are going to deliver the results they were intended to. We need a reassessment of the rules. If they are fit for purpose and are going to deliver the results, that is okay, but if they are not, they need to be removed and some of the onerous burdens taken off farmers.

In conclusion, the retention of the nitrates derogation is critical to the future not only of the dairy sector but the wider agricultural sector. We in the ICMSA firmly believe that water quality can and will improve while retaining an economically viable and important agricultural sector. However, the policy of the Government must move from a policy of regulation to a policy of support and proper engagement with farmers.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank both organisations for a very focused presentation. It is unusual that the six questions we asked to be addressed were dealt with so comprehensively. I compliment the focus of the presentations. I did not need convincing that it is a priority for both organisations and the huge economic importance of the derogation is clear. I thank them for that. We will move to questions. I call Deputy Flaherty.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I thank both organisations for coming in. As the Chair said, they were very comprehensive submissions. The witnesses will find no enemies in this room and the committee is steadfast in its commitment to ensure that we hold onto the derogation. What we want from farm organisations is the ammunition and means so we can go to our political peers and, more importantly, go to Europe to say that this is what we need to retain for this industry. The Chair, in particular, has been very vocal on this and took a number of members to Europe on the matter. We want to work collectively with both organisations. We want to protect and safeguard our dairy industry and the vibrant farming communities across the country. This is a key year for both organisations, with a European election coming up.

I will move to questions shortly. Having gone through the two submissions, we need to get both organisations before the housing committee because they have brought up very valid points on the planning issues they are encountering, in particular with slurry issues. In terms of the ask we made of the organisations, they have given us a comprehensive outline of what we need to do and where we need to give them the capacity to address water quality issues. One of the issues is planning, where we really need to do something. I will go first to the ICMSA. Does it have figures from its members regarding the number of applications for slurry storage that are held up, or has it done any work on that at this point?

Mr. Denis Drennan

For TAMS, there were roughly 2,500 applications at the close of the first tranche on 30 June last year and, as of today, only 800 of those have been approved. That means some 1,700 farmers have been waiting almost a year for TAMS approval, having gone through a rigorous planning process.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

Although the witnesses might not have this information today, with regard to holding onto the 220 kg N/ha limit and keeping numbers more or less as is, where do we need to get to in respect of slurry storage?

Mr. Denis Drennan

Some reports say there is approximately a 30% deficit in slurry storage but huge strides have been made since that report was issued two years ago, so we have probably caught up a lot. We cannot have enough slurry storage in the sense that while it might be mandatory to have 16, 18 or 20 weeks, farmers want to be in a position where they can spread slurry when they want to and when the weather conditions are favourable, not when they have to. It is the ultimate goal of every farmer to be able to use the nutrients created on his or her own farm in the most effective manner at the best time of the year. That is when there will be the least loss of nutrients to water or to air. If they are in control of their slurry and spread it at the optimum time, that is when they will have maximum uptake by the grass, which is most effective for farmers economically but also from an environmental point of view.

Mr. John Enright

There is an issue in regard to the TAMS scheme. If I am one day short of the legal requirement, I cannot qualify for grant aid. For example, if I want to go from 16 weeks to 20 weeks, I cannot qualify if I am one day short of the 16 weeks. It is an anomaly that needs to be resolved because the benefits of resolving that anomaly will be significant.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I am not sure if this question is for the ICMSA or the IFA, but I want to ask about the number of inspections that a farmer can have over a year, whether he is in ACRES or other schemes or is a certified food producer. Are the organisations aware of any jurisdiction where this is centralised and a farmer is just inspected once and everything is done once a year? Is that possible or pragmatic? Does that happen anywhere else in the world?

Mr. John Enright

Not that we are aware of. Under the Bord Bia schemes, farmers are inspected once every 18 months.

Once you apply for the BISS payment, you are at risk of having an inspection every year, and there are all those other schemes. Then the local authorities can call to you at any time.

Mr. Denis Drennan

There is an inspection on 10% of derogation farms every year. There is a one in ten chance of being inspected with derogation, and a guaranteed one inspection every month from SDAS, which will cross-reference if there is a pollution issue or something like that. Then there is the normal 5% to 10% in BISS and the eco schemes.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I know from your protests around the country at the minute that over-regulation is big issue. We have great sympathy for farmers with regard to that. Farmers want to be out farming, protecting the environment and doing the best for the country. They do not want to be burdened with paperwork, and it is putting a huge additional cost on them. Has the IFA given any thought to this whole issue of over-regulation and paperwork, and what can be done to address this? What are the IFA's key proposals on it? I know we are going slightly off the derogation issue on this but I am conscious, as I hear it an awful lot from farmers.

Mr. Francie Gorman

First, I think it is great that both ourselves and the ICMSA are here today because it shows how united farmers are in seeing our derogation protected. It is hugely important. For us, as Mr. Drennan said, it is about slurry storage capacity. It is first of all that all farmers are entitled to apply for slurry storage capacity. At the moment, that is not the case, if you do not have the required amount. It is the planning. However, it is also the certainty for farmers because there are three pillars if you are going to invest in your farm. They are planning, the supports and how you can fund it from your own business. If you are looking four or five years down the line and see that, possibly, you could have a reduction in cow numbers, you are going to be very reluctant to invest in extra slurry storage capacity on your farm. That is why we need a certain level of certainty down the road, where farmers will have the confidence to invest their own money in their own businesses. That is not there at the minute.

With regard to regulation, the frustration that is there at farm level at the moment is palpable. It is around how farmers feel they have been regulated out of business, how their supports and income have been cut, and even down to how they are being perceived in the media. A very small, vocal minority seems to have a greater level of influence on how our business is perceived by the general public. To be fair, we are doing a really good job in what we do at farm level and we have invested-----

Deputy Joe Flaherty

In fairness we accept that but, unfortunately, much as we would like to, we cannot control the media. The IFA probably has the same issues we have. I take it on board. The media are very much Dublin-centred and it is a big issue for farmers.

The reality is that the water quality did not improve, so we are where we are. I take it on board, and I have say this every time the EPA comes into us at the housing committee. I tell it that it is not entirely a farm issue and that there are other factors. The witnesses have given examples to us here that industry, sewage treatment and all of these play an important part. With regard to going with a united front on this derogation, we really need to say what the key ask is that farmers have and that they want to effect. Slurry is obviously one, and in the limited time that I have left, what would the witnesses say are the others?

Mr. Francie Gorman

I will bring Mr. Buckley in on that.

Mr. Tadhg Buckley

I thank Mr. Gorman, and Deputy Flaherty for the question. On the water quality side of it, what we have seen over the last ten years, if you look at the nitrates levels, is that they really have more or less flatlined. They have more or less remained the same, if you look within the margin of error. We fully understand, particularly if we look at the requirements of the water framework directive, that we need to see improvement. We are fortunate, and people sometimes do not appreciate that if you look at, say, groundwater for nitrate levels, we are no. 4 in the EU on that. There are other aspects of measurements of water quality where we are probably in the top third. We are coming from a good place but at the same time, we understand completely that we have to continue to protect and improve water quality.

The challenge with that is that it is an incredibly complex issue. Farmers have taken on board over 30 measures since 2020, and there are more measures coming again now. We have an interim review of the nitrates action programme ongoing, and that will bring more measures. We have done a huge amount since the start of this decade. You do not see those results overnight.

The authorities at both EU and national levels need to fully appreciate the lag times, particularly at the EU level. There needs to be an acceptance that we are implementing the measures already but we need to be given the space and the opportunity to demonstrate-----

Deputy Joe Flaherty

When does Mr. Buckley see the benefit of those measures kicking in?

Mr. Tadhg Buckley

Sorry?

Deputy Joe Flaherty

When does he the see the benefit or real impact? We have flatlined at the moment. When does he see an impact?

Mr. Tadhg Buckley

It completely depends. It is very difficult to say that because there is a whole host of other issues that affect water quality, like hydromorphology and climate. The other thing about it is that at the moment we look at water quality at an entire catchment level. We should be looking at it at a sub-catchment level. In fairness, if you take where I am from on the Cork-Kerry border, the catchment we are in is the Blackwater catchment. That enters the sea in Youghal, so it is a massive catchment. We should certainly be looking at sub-catchment level, and we also need to fully understand the different impacts that are actually happening at all catchment levels. At the moment, we certainly do not have enough of an understanding with regard to what is happening across all the catchments. The Teagasc catchment programme has been really good in demonstrating, in different catchments, the impacts that different measures have had. Unfortunately, we cannot say that in 15 months' time, this is going to have this impact because there is a whole host of other aspects going on.

The other thing we want is the right measures to be put in place. Based on research, if you are reducing, a blanket reduction in stocking rates is not the panacea to solving levels. There are better ways of doing this, as demonstrated under the ASSAP programme where there were priority actions taken that had a really positive effect on water quality, without having any impact on stocking levels. That is the key thing we need to look at. We need to look at implementing more appropriate measures and we need to do this at a widespread level. We need to do this nationally. The ASSAP programme is very good but it needs to be ramped up. Farmers need to be given the time, and we also need to put the supports in place with regard to allowing all farmers to be able put in place slurry storage. That is one of the key things we need to do to make sure we can maximise nutrients and protect produce.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I am conscious of time.

An Cathaoirleach

Mr. Drennan is next.

Mr. Denis Drennan

Maybe a little bit of understanding is needed as to why the derogation was cut. It was not cut just because of nitrates in the water. It was cut for four reasons. It was stated that there were nitrates in a catchment above 50 mg/l, and there are hardly any parts of the country at that. It was stated that there was an increase of nitrates in the water. If you look at the results from the agricultural catchments programme, which is monitoring the water coming out of certain catchments every ten minutes, they have seen over the last 14 years that if you get a drought or a flood, it can increase the nitrates by up to 5 mg/l. What we were judged on between 2021 and 2022 - it was not a trend but a snapshot between two years - is that if there was an increase of 1 mg/l, your catchment failed, even thought a drought or a flood could cause 5 mg/l of a change. There was actually very little of the country caught on higher nitrates in the water. The two big ones that caught the country were eutrophication, which is very small in the country as well, and "at risk of becoming eutrophic", which was the biggest one. That is the one that caught nearly the whole country, not excessive nitrates or an increase in nitrates. "Increased nitrates" is very unfair because any sort of weather event could cause that.

"At risk of becoming eutrophic" is the judgment that has really caused the problem in most of the country, and that is why cutting the derogation was so unfair. The terms and conditions that were signed up to included a cut from 250 kg N/ha to 220 kg N/ha. If there is one thing we need to make sure of, it is that we do not sign up to something like that again. It is complete unfair and totally unrealistic on farmers.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

Before the Chair moves on, as I said, we want to hold on to this but in the interest of farming and rural communities we serve, we have to take this battle to the others. It is very important, and I will write to the secretariat of the housing committee next week and get both organisations back with regard to the planning issues, and specifically on the slurry issue. It is going to be a key ask for us to try to address over the next two years.

Senator Tim Lombard

It is like Groundhog Day. That is how I would describe it, as we have been through all these issues previously.

It is great the witnesses are here. Their presentations were informative. I acknowledge the Chair's contribution to the debate. He has been active in making sure we got to have this forum, which is important for many of us.

I will start with the IFA. We need to have a debate about the whole issue of whether the derogation is fit for purpose. Let us take the information about how the catchment in Timoleague has worked in the past 14 years, including how it has shown that good farming practices, such as increasing stocking rate has not led to any major changes in the water quality in that area. Will Mr. Murphy share his knowledge and understanding of why it worked in Timoleague and talk about the testing regimes, everything that has been in place, the soil type and other environmental factors? If we suggest that the core basic tool of a stocking rate will solve everything and then we look at a place like Timoleague versus a place like Leitrim where there is only one derogation farmer, how can the issue of whether the stocking rate will solve the issue of derogation be logically argued?

Mr. John Murphy

It will not, in a nutshell. Many different factors have to be looked at, such as those Mr. Buckley touched on earlier, including climate, soil type, stocking rate and activity. The one in Timoleague has no treatment plant and does not have a substantial amount of human activity above the test centres. There are bore holes from which samples were taken in the past 12 years and they have shown us over time that weather is a big influence. Its stocks have increased substantially since 2015 and the outflows have not increased. I have asked several times why these results, which have been available for 12 years at this stage, are not taken into account by the EPA. The answer seems to be that the tests are not done by a statutory body. The results are not used because the EPA is the statutory body. We wonder if a closer look was taken at what Eddie Burgess and his team are doing in this area, whether we would be shown in a more favourable light. The margin of error was already mentioned, the small increase or decrease or so-called trend. We had a drought in 2018 which was problematic for us because the advice given to farmers at the time was that they should put out additional nitrogen at the end of the year. The Minister even got an exemption after the closed period to grow more fodder. In hindsight, that has turned out to have been a big mistake. It gave us a blip in the mark. It has already been stated that the nitrates level in the water has been relatively flat for the past 15 years. There are very small ups and downs, although the stock density has increased in some parts of the country. Cow numbers have gone up. We hope that the EPA will look at these issues in the catchment areas in a more favourable light in its next report.

Senator Tim Lombard

Regarding the catchments Mr. Drennan mentioned in his opening statement, we have Teagasc, the EPA and the Department all making acknowledgements or submissions to the Commission about the nitrates derogation. Two Departments are involved. The Department of local government and the Department of agriculture are working together on this issue. As an organisation, do we need a streamlined attitude to who reports to the Commission and should one Department be in charge of this, rather than having Teagasc, the EPA and two Departments involved?

Mr. Denis Drennan

Ultimately, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage applied for the derogation. The problem is what was signed up to in the interim review of the derogation in 2020 or 2021. I am mixing up the years, but that we would have a mid-term review and the terms and conditions that were signed up to in that were onerous in the sense that denitrification is the problem. As Mr. Murphy said, we have learned from the mistakes. We had another drought in 2021, the advice was different and the results were different. We are learning as we go. Everyone is learning. The catchments programme has shown a huge number of lessons for farmers, scientists and advisers. When the agricultural sustainability, support and advisory programme, ASSAP, was set up, the local authority waters programme, LAWPRO, and the Department of housing said that nitrogen and phosphorous were the main issues in all the catchments. It was soon discovered that sediment was as big an issue as nitrates or phosphorous. Everyone is learning as we go. Measures are being changed. The catchments programme is probably delivering the best results. When something is being monitored every ten minutes you get a fairly accurate picture of what is happening, not happening, working and not working. That is why I made the point that the hydromorphology, soil type and weather events are higher up the priority list from the agricultural catchments programme. Instead of people who may have an agenda saying we need to get rid of cows or a drop in cow numbers will solve the problem, we need to make whichever Department takes it on understand what is causing the problem. That is why we are saying we need a catchment by catchment assessment. It is obvious that derogation farms in Leitrim are not causing the problem because there is only one, unless that farmer is doing something really bad. We need a catchment by catchment assessment to see what the issues are in each catchment and then we can put measures in place to deal with those issues.

Senator Tim Lombard

Following on from that, will Mr. Buckley give his view on the testing regime that has been put in place? One is being carried out by Teagasc in 14 catchments for which we have results that are almost available up to date. We have the testing regime carried out by the EPA, which involves monthly testing in most bodies of water and that information is only made available in a report published the following year. If, like me, you are a dairy farmer, you have a result of what is happening in your bull tank within 48 hours. Do we need to empower the farming community with the results from the water bodies that have been tested? Should it be a new regulation, that the EPA should inform the farming community of the results in a catchment within hours of the test and not publish the report 18 months later?

Mr. Tadhg Buckley

The catchment programme has been spoken about. It is a real asset because it is hugely beneficial. It is an intense level of testing. It would not be possible to replicate that level of testing nationwide, not that the Senator is suggesting that. One of the things I see as a bit of a frustration and that I hear about a lot from our members - I am sure the ICMSA is similar - is that many farmers want to know what is the quality of the river on their farms. Water quality is hugely important to everyone, farmers and non-farmers. No one wants to see the water decline significantly in quality because it is what the whole community uses. It is very difficult to find the results on catchments.ie because, in fairness, it is more designed from a research perspective than for lay people. We need to have some way to allow farmers to see those results so they can see what the status of their local stream or river is, see the latest results and be able to understand what the trend is. At the moment they are in the dark because it is difficult to get access to that data. It would certainly be useful.

I sit on the water quality group with Mr. Carroll and Mr. Drennan was on it in the past. We spoke about that in the group. We asked whether a method could be developed to allow people to see what the story is with the rivers on their farms and what the readings are. At the moment it is difficult to get access to that.

Senator Tim Lombard

Is that not the issue? We are trying to empower farmers with the available information, yet reports are published 18 months after the first test. That is what happens. We wait for the EPA to come on "Morning Ireland" to inform us of what is happening with water quality nationally. It is important we are told what is happening. I do not have an issue with that, but farmers need to know within a week of a result being available. How can they change a farming practices if they do not get the information?

Mr. John Enright

The first point is that if they are telling farmers, they should also be telling Irish Water. In certain cases, it is not due to the agricultural sector. Other sectors could be responsible. The critical issue is - and certainly more real time data would help - that we identify the source of the problem. It may not be the agricultural sector; it may be other sectors.

Certainly, it would help if there were more real-time data and maybe a bit more visibility around when the samples are taken, the frequency of sampling and, as Mr. Drennan and other colleagues here have mentioned, the impact of weather on sampling. There needs to be more transparency and visibility around that.

Senator Tim Lombard

My issue with that is if one has a beach that is closed because is an E. coli outbreak tomorrow morning, the public is told within days of the result. Automatically, if there is something that can be done, it can be done. The farming community do not have such information. They are waiting for "Morning Ireland".

Mr. Francie Gorman

Absolutely. For me, the issue is that there needs to be a longer-term view taken of the results as well. If you look at it over a short term such as a 12-month period, it is not acceptable. They need to look at those results over a five- or ten-year period and give the measures that farmers are taking on farm time to show that they will deliver an improvement in water quality. For me, it would be a shame in four or five years' time if you see an improvement in water quality, which I believe you will, that the reduction in stocking rate from 250 kg N/ha to 220 kg N/ha may well be said by some to be why we get an improvement in water quality while in reality, it will be the measures that farmers took on-farm and the amount of money that they invested on-farm to improving water quality that will probably have delivered the results. That is why it is critical to support farmers to invest in more slurry storage capacity. As Mr. Drennan said earlier on, it gives us an opportunity to spread it at a better time of the year with the use of low-emission slurry-spreading equipment. Slurry should be viewed as an asset. Instead, some people view it as a waste material. It is anything but. Considering what we have done on our farms in terms of reducing our fertiliser usage, biodiversity and you name it, we have taken massive steps over the past five years and we have got to be given credit for that. Maybe John Murphy has a view on it as well.

Mr. Denis Drennan

Senator Lombard is touching on a valuable point, if the information is there. We have a blanket regulatory body across the whole country. If you split the country, in the north-west of the country, generally, phosphorus is a problem; in the south-east of the country, nitrogen is a problem. It is mainly due to soil type because you have freer draining land in the south east and you have heavier land in the north west. What happens as a country? We have the same phosphorus regulations for the whole country and we have the same nitrogen regulations for the whole country. What we really need to get to is that if each catchment has a different problem or a different issue or if something is happening there, we need the right measure in the right place on the right catchment.

The other point, while I have the floor, is the eutrophic thing is judged at transitional waters near the estuary. If something goes wrong near the estuary, somebody who is, as Mr. Buckley said, 100 miles or 150 miles further upstream in pristine water is still caught by the derogation cut. It does not make sense. That is what is really frustrating farmers. Farmers are there thinking what is the point in them doing this right in their area, even though they want to do it right, if something that happens 100 miles downstream will snooker them.

Mr. John Murphy

People do not have a lot of trust in what is happening at the minute. There are too many issues of unanswered questions about these estuaries and the nitrogen levels. We are on a journey here to reduce our risk to the environment in lots of different shapes and forms. Water quality is one of them.

Slurry storage in the country is a national asset the same as putting up more treatment plants for an expanding population and we need time to get this in order. We need finance and we need time, and we need information and knowledge. Definitely, the advisory programme to farmers, especially on individual catchment areas, has to improve. The industry is getting on board with the agricultural sustainability support and advisory programme, ASSAP, but it has to be expanded. In reality, it needs Exchequer financing as well. It is as important to educate people, and even everybody in broader society, about what is going on as well as putting the storage in place and giving farmers the tools to deal with it in the longer term.

Deputy Michael Collins

I welcome the IFA and the ICMSA here to the meeting today.

A lot has been said here today about the situation. In relation to farming any way and the dairy sector, the goalposts are changing almost every day of the week and no dairy farmer can plan. That is what they tell me anyhow; I am more on the suckler side of it. I meet dairy farmers every day of the week. I worked with them down through the years. If the goalposts change every day of the week and if the European legislation and local government legislation keeps changing, that means the farmer must change to meet those needs.

During all this derogation debacle, which is the best way I can describe it, every politician in the country was running down to Timoleague. I felt it was making a fool of the farmers below there because they thought they had some hope because they had done what needed to be done in relation to Irish agriculture and it meant nothing. This is European legislation and we are in Europe. It looks like the French and the Germans have now woken up and there may be changes coming.

I plead with the IFA, as an organisation. God knows, I am a member of the IFA. I am not in the ICMSA - I am sorry about that - because I do not milk cows. I did at one time, with my bare hands, but that time has changed. I fight hard for farmers and that fight is not going on in Europe today. It is not going on by our own politicians in Europe and I felt that our leaders did not do us any justice in this. While they may say it was European legislation, they were finger-pointing, fighting locally and trying to get it so that if this is to happen, it will get across the line but if they make a bit of a fuss and a fooster, it might sound good. It is not good enough.

Farmers' livelihoods are under severe pressure. I speak to them every day of the week. Last Christmas 12 months, a farmer rang me. He was investing in a robot milking parlour. Our guests will be aware that many farmers have invested quite a lot in recent times and there has been the VAT crisis. You name it, everything will be thrown at them just to make sure that a farmer cannot grow or a young person who wants to come on and make changes is not allowed make changes. The farmer said to me last Christmas 12 months that he was thinking of buying a robot parlour set-up. He had one already. One would say he is a substantial farmer to do that but he had invested quite a lot. He asked me for my advice. I would hate to stop anyone from investing but I told him what was coming down the road. He said to me that there have got to be changes in this because the political system led him to believe that there would be changes. I said, "Maybe I am wrong and if I am, I will put my two hands up in the air.", but I was not wrong. He was a lucky man. He contacted me afterwards to say he did not invest. It is terribly sad to think that I could not advise him and say, "Come on, grow." There is a big family of them there. He has youngsters coming their way, but I could not if I wanted to tell him the truth. I could have told him a fib. I felt that a lot of farmers were being told fibs and that there was not enough action taken by this Government to try to swing the hand of the European legislators. As I said, others might do that.

Has the IFA any confidence, if we have the same set-up going forward, that we will not go from 220 kg N/ha to 170 kg N/ha? Have they confidence in this Government that it will fight for them to make sure that that will not happen? That is what it is down to. "Enough is Enough", is the IFA's slogan. I fully agree with. Enough is enough but we have no backbone in this country to fight for the farmer. Whether it be a dairy or a suckler man, there is no backbone.

The Greens today are wagging the tail of Irish Government. God knows, you have got to praise them. They are doing a hell of a bloody-good job. What if Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and them will not wake up and start backing the hard-working Irish farmer who produces pristine green good-quality land and good-quality products and stop looking at what we are bringing in from abroad, which is all we are doing? We have this habit to block everything to come into this country but make sure we bring it in the backdoor from some other country, such as the Brazilian beef. I could go on forever.

I would ask Mr. Gorman that question. Has the IFA confidence with the current structure we have that they will fight to make sure we will not go from 220 kg N/ha to 170 kg N/ha and we do not have people going around another year or two fooling farmers in Timoleague and all over the place and going nowhere? Can Mr. Gorman answer me that question?

Mr. Francie Gorman

There are a couple of comments I will make on that. I thank the Deputy for his contribution.

Has Europe woken up? Farmers were always awake to the dangers of this but it is the frustration at the political classes not listening to the concerns we had that have really put huge pressure on farmers over the past number of years, and particularly if you look at the way the derogation was handled from April 2022 when it was announced as a fait accompli. We finished up, in September, with the Commissioner coming over.

He did not think for a second of visiting a farm - and there were a number of them within half an hour of Dublin - to see best practice. That frustrated farmers in a huge way. It probably undermined their confidence in the Commission particularly, that he would not come and see what best practice is in this country by visiting a derogation farmer who was implementing all the measures in the Teagasc marginal abatement cost curve, MACC, and showing this. It shattered the farmers' confidence in their belief that they were going to get a fair bang for their buck in how the review of this nitrates action programme would be handled. T.J. Maher said 50 years ago when we were going into Europe that it was our grass-based system that gave us an advantage in how we could compete in terms of producing our product and selling it. We have the highest labour costs and the highest energy costs in Europe and if we are going to be able to compete selling our product, we have to retain the advantage that our grass-based system gives us. All we are looking for is an opportunity to demonstrate that to the powers that be and time to show that the measures we are taking and implementing on our farms will deliver. In answer to the Deputy's question, we are definitely - at the very least - frustrated. We want to see a greater level of engagement with farmers around how this review is conducted. Teagasc and the EPA have to be included as well. I am 100% clear on this. It is a red-line issue for us that if the industry comes together, the processing industry comes on board, and with the support of our Government and politicians, it can be delivered. It will not be for the want of action on behalf of the organisations before the committee, whether it is ourselves or the ICMSA.

Mr. Tadhg Buckley

I have one point to add to that. It is often said to us that we are one of only two, three or four countries that has a derogation, which is the case. However, it is often said as if we have to almost apologise for having a derogation. The reason we do is because our grass-based system, in that we can grow grass like no other country in the EU can. We have a completely different system. We have to get away from this thing of saying we are the only country with it, the Netherlands has it and is losing it, and Denmark has it and it is under review. Ireland is completely different from those countries. We do not have an easy way to export slurry to be it anaerobic digestion, AD, infrastructure that is not in Ireland at the moment though it may be in the future. We do not have huge amounts of tillage ground which they have in other countries where they have a much lower level of grassland. The other thing to remember is that if we lose this derogation, we will move away from the grass-based system. It is not a competitive advantage any more; it allows us to be able to compete internationally with other dairy producers. As the president has said, we do not have any other advantage. We are actually disadvantaged in everything else because we are a high-cost economy to do business in whether you are in farming, hospitality or whatever else. It is a high-cost economy and that is a fact. The derogation farmers are operating at a much higher level in terms of the number of requirements that are asked of them than non-derogation farmers. It is understandable that they operate at a higher level. However, if Europe takes away the derogation, we have this group of farmers who are doing all these extra measures and we will lose the goodwill of farmers as well. As they will be making a lot less money, how will the extra measures be financed? It is a very complex issue and simplifying it or threatening by saying we will lose the derogation because only a number of other countries have it, is not a sensible or a practical way to assess it. It is also not something to which farmers will respond positively.

Mr. John Murphy

Deputy Collins who was asking if we had confidence in the political system. We were involved in Cork last April 12 months ago and we started this campaign because we could see where it was going. We got on to politicians, started up an awareness campaign and it gained momentum after a number of months. Unfortunately, a lot of the harm was done in the previous year that we did not know anything about. We felt seriously let down by the Government of the day. It did not bat hard enough for us when the derogation was being sought. The narrative from the officials was: "Look, we had to agree, we were lucky to get it". They were four months late getting it and my understanding is that they were so late because they were waiting for EPA reports that were delayed over six months. The whole thing was you were being backed into a corner and then they agreed to stuff that in reality we could not achieve. Therefore, there is a huge lack of confidence in what happened at that juncture and we were back-pedalling then for the next 18 months. It moved on then to the situation where the EPA took months and months to produce its report to give us the final say on which parts of the country, or if any of the country, would go down to 220 kg N/ha and then it went all the way to nearly the middle of October before the Department wrote to farmers to tell them they had to reduce their stocking density in different parts. We have a seasonal calving system and a grass-based system. Plans are made between January and April for the following year so we had a situation then where people were backed into a corner. You can see how it came to light then. It came to light first in the land market nearly 18 months ago when fellas in the know realised there was a huge problem there. It exploded. Then the market collapsed for replacement dairy stock overnight. That is massive asset destruction for farmers who built up businesses over the years and they are really sore over it. This thing has come up on the political agenda and we are delighted it has. Now we have to pull together here and make sure this thing is protected. Mr. Buckley is absolutely right in saying that talking about a derogation and that we are the only ones getting it is just nonsense. We have such a different system.

An Cathaoirleach

If Mr. Drennan will make a brief comment, I have to move on to the next speaker.

Mr. Denis Drennan

What we signed up to in the review of the derogation did not make sense. As I said, we were not caught by an increase in nitrates in the water. Most of the country was caught by a risk of becoming eutrophic. I can go across the road and there is a risk I will get knocked down but I may not. That is where the problem was. In the meantime then, we have two massive issues that have been highlighted already. What do we need to do to improve this and how we need to sort it? We need extra slurry storage. Planning and TAMS are both clogged up at the minute. We have lost the full 14 months, heading for 15 months, with no shovels in the ground because of the lack of planning and TAMS approval. What is happening in ASSAP areas is absolutely disheartening farmers. We have ASSAP areas where farmers are getting one-to-one advice, the right measures are being put in the right place, water quality is improving in the majority of these areas, yet they were still cut. How can you justify signing up to something that, even though in your local catchment the farmers have all come together, done the right thing and the water quality has improved, yet you are still cut. We have great knowledge in the country from the agricultural catchments programme as regards the issues that are causing the problem and what the best measures are to fix the problem, yet those are not the measures that are being implemented. That is where the frustration is coming in. Even if the right thing is done and the water quality improves, farmers are still cut. How can you stand over that? It is really frustrating.

Mr. John Enright

I will make a brief point. Mr. Drennan mentioned earlier that we have the derogation farmers with 50 or more requirements on them in order to farm at that level of farming. Everything is inspected. The frustration among farmers is that the level of regulation is really trying to choke the sector. While the current generation might put up with it, the next generation will not. This is critical from our perspective. We have a hugely innovative modern dairy sector, which is globally recognised and we are in serious danger from a generational renewal point of view of destroying that sector unless we cop ourselves on.

Deputy Claire Kerrane

I thank the witnesses for coming in and for their very detailed and informative opening statements, which leave few questions to be asked. The greatest frustration in all of this has been the lack of clarity and it remains today. We had the environment Commissioner come over to Ireland and he talked about stable water quality. Since then we have heard reports of the need for the water framework directive to be met and we know there are targets in that up to 2027, which is not very far away. What is needed here now is a clear roadmap on how we improve water quality but there has to be a much wider response from all, not just farmers. It is not right, correct or even going to get us anywhere if it is left to farmers to do all of the work.

Anything farmers do is minimal. That has been proven by the Teagasc research on water quality, so we will not actually improve water quality. However, the main people affected by that are farmers because they are the ones being directly hit by the derogation. It is important to note that the work the committee is undertaking and the report we will produce is on the economic and social impact but also the need to send a message to Europe that reducing the derogation time and again, while it impacts on farmers, will not actually improve water quality. We need a much wider response. I refer to the issue of investing in slurry storage when there is no certainty about what will happen next and the impact on the next generation. It comes back to this over-and-back with the derogation every few years. That needs to be looked at much longer term because there is no certainty for farmers. The basis of the current system is not legitimate. The over-and-back every few years will not work for the continuation and sustainability of the dairy sector.

I ask for more information on the issue of planning permission and the difficulties it raises for slurry storage. TAMS, which we are familiar with, was mentioned. I ask for a response on the time issue with planning permission and backlogs.

The message that needs to be put across to farmers is that this is the scheme, these are the actions they need to take and they will be financially rewarded for doing so. There will be a cost of compliance and they need to be paid to improve water quality and do their bit. Again, a much wider response is needed from others, not just farmers.

It was mentioned that there is nothing in ACRES on improving water quality. Does that need to be built into ACRES or is another scheme needed? The Department is being rigid in saying the numbers will be limited to 50,000 and that is it. There have been 8,000 or 9,000 applications but that figure will be cut to 4,000 to hit the 50,000 limit. Will this be rolled out and implemented by means of the actions required through ACRES, with farmers being required separately to take actions anyway?

Mr. Denis Drennan

The planning scenario is gone beyond a joke. There are serial objectors all over the country who go online, look at what is coming up in each county’s subsection on agriculture and then lodge an objection. Because the objection is deemed to be on an environmental issue, there is no cost or implications, win, lose or draw. What happens is the objector will normally leave it until the last day before asking whether the implication of the proposal has been considered under nature restoration or bird habitat rules or whether it is within 15 km of an SPA or SAC. The farmer then ends up having to spend €4,000 or €5,000 on an appropriate assessment - an environmental impact assessment - for the planning. It takes a couple months for somebody to do that and the whole process is dragged out. The objector could be 200 miles away. It is crazy. Many NGOs have become serial objectors as well, even though a different wing of the same organisation may be saying that farmers have to do the right thing and so forth. We need some sort of a fast-track scenario. Why must farmers who are extending their farmyard or building slurry storage in their farmyard go through the rigours? It is not as if they are putting up something new and turning an industrial zone into a farmyard. We need some sort of fast-track approach so that farmers can get shovels into the ground.

It is the same with ACRES. ACRES has received 50,000 applications. Most intensive farmers are not eligible for ACRES. I tried to get into REAP, which was a pilot scheme the year before ACRES commenced. Most advisers would not take on intensive farmers because there was an interview scoring system in the first tranche of ACRES, under which 30,000 applicants were supposed to be allowed in. There were 46,000 applications and most intensive farmers did not apply because their advisers felt that since it would be scored, they would not get in. There was savage pressure to get plans done. The deadline was extended to allow more time to get applications in. Advisers basically said to anybody engaged in intensive farming that they would not get through the scoring system so there was no point in the adviser wasting time doing up a plan. As it turned out, if a farmer had gone ahead and their adviser had done a plan, they would have been accepted because all 46,000 applications were accepted. However, that is the benefit of hindsight.

The next scheme received 8,000 applications, of which only 4,000 will be accepted. However, what we really need is for ACRES, like the old REPS, to be applicable to all farmers, both intensive and extensive, and for there to be measures applicable specifically for intensive farmers. Farmers are more than willing to engage to protect water quality, as they did in the old REPS. Those need to be practical measures that can be carried out at farm level. We will then see an increase in water quality and greater protection of water quality.

Mr. John Enright

Regarding dairy farming, the other issue is that the policy is to make everything a regulation, and once it becomes a regulation, it cannot be funded under REPS because it is not a voluntary measure. There are issues with that. The following example is related to TAMS rather than ACRES. I refer to low emissions slurry spreading. Last year, farmers spreading between 130 kg N/ha and 150 kg N/ha could apply for a grant. This year, they can no longer apply for a grant because these levels are now a legal requirement. The equipment is hugely expensive for farmers to purchase. The policy has been adopted to make everything a requirement but once it becomes a legal requirement, we cannot support farmers to meet that transition and those requirements. That is a major problem.

Mr. Francie Gorman

I thank Deputy Kerrane for her questions. On the planning issue, the serial objectors are clogging up the system. That is the single biggest problem. Someone living 150 miles away from a development can decide to object to it on flimsy grounds. This issue has been highlighted year after year. To be fair, the political system has not addressed it and it needs to do so.

Regarding ACRES, there are measures in place, such as riparian zones, that farmers can adopt to help improve water quality. However, the scheme has become almost impossible to administer. Payments have not been made to farmers. We welcome what the Minister did after a meeting last Wednesday night in getting interim payments out to farmers. That is a help but underfunding of the scheme is a huge issue. If those issues were addressed, it would be a big help.

Another point needs to be made. This is not only a dairy issue; rather, it affects everybody, including tillage farmers and livestock farmers. It has overheated the land market to such an extent that it will threaten the viability of some family farms that are now tied into long-term leases. The uncertainty around where people will be in four years’ time is preventing farmers from investing in their farms. I know dairy farmers who are forced into the land market to take land that they do not need. This is adding to the cost of production. Those are the issues that must be addressed.

We are doing our job at farm level, to be fair, and we will continue to do it. The best farmers have always taken the best advice across the board. It is the same with respect to water quality or environmental issues. The best farmers will implement the best advice that comes their way. There is nobody more cognisant of the fact that we need quality water on our farms than farmers themselves.

Mr. John Murphy

I will add one point on the issue of planning permission. Perhaps we should try to think outside the box and look for some sort of exemption. There are currently exemptions where the development is below a certain number of square metres and is located more than 100 m from a dwelling house. However, the exemption level is very small. Planning for stand-alone slurry storage needs to be fast-tracked. Last year, a whole season was lost in the TAMS. Time is not our friend here. It is no good approving slurry storage works in the middle of September because no one will dig a hole in the middle of October to put a tank into it because it is just not practical. On the planning side, could the planning legislation going through the Oireachtas be looked at? Members might be in a position to do that.

The Deputy made the point that farmers are taking on more measures and more cost. Commercial farmers in particular have to bear the brunt of that cost to maintain their business at current levels. We are swimming harder to stand still. The grant structure is very important to make it affordable for farmers.

On ACRES and whether farmers can do more for water quality and environmental issues, it has gone extremely complicated. Look at the number of payments farmers get this year compared with their old single farm payment five years ago. There is stuff coming into their bank accounts and they do not know what it is for. The Department did not tool up for that in terms of staff. Suddenly, we are left with a mess and the mess then pushed back stuff like TAMS because the Department, in its wisdom, decided that payments were more important than getting sanction for grants. The TAMS stuff was put to the side, the Department failed to make the single farm payments on time and there was then a huge issue with ACRES. The whole thing has become so complicated from an administrative perspective. If you ask any agriculture adviser, they have their hair torn out and they are sick of it.

That is a really bad narrative to have in the industry as a whole. It is just completely negative. I am not a negative person by nature. We have to find practical solutions to this thing. We are in a situation where the country is reasonably financed. We do not have enough staff or IT expertise in the Department of agriculture to administer these huge things. They benefit all society; not just farmers.

An Cathaoirleach

Okay. I will go to the next speaker.

Senator Paul Daly

I am sorry I was late and did not get to hear the presentation but for once I have my homework done and I had them read. I have two questions for both organisations to get their comments and I have two comments to make first. I compliment the Chair and the members of the committee for initiating this study and doing the report to enhance our chances as best we can to hold onto the derogation. This committee works well. We all leave our politics outside the door and we are all here for the common good. That is both sides of the table. All politicians from whatever party or none and the witnesses have the one agenda, which is to put together the best report we can to bring over to Brussels or wherever it needs to be taken to enhance our chances of holding onto the derogation. I was disappointed because politics were brought into it a little earlier and I want to put on record that we are all on the one side here and we should stay on the one side. We are where we are. We have a lot of regrets that we have got to where we are but if we are to spend the duration of this survey blaming one another for why we got to where we got, we will not get to where we need to go. It is important to say that because politics begin to come into it and if we do not leave it at the door and work together, we will not achieve what we need to.

Second, I agree with Mr. Gorman. We need to build this into our body of work. I have said this myself. Because of the lag time not being allowed, there will be an improvement in the water. The powers that be and the people it suits will spin that to the end of the earth and say, “Look what the reduction has achieved”. Then that will be used for a further reduction. We have to be ready to bat that away now because as sure as night follows day, that will happen. The improvement will happen because of the work that has been put in and the things that were in place but that were not given time to bed in. It will be spun that once we were brought down from 250 kg N/ha to 220 kg N/ha, there was improvement in the water. We need to be prepared to combat that one from the outset from here on.

Mr. Buckley touched on the idea that we are the only ones to have a derogation and we should not be privileged. We might be the only ones the next time. I agree. It should not be spun that way but we are and will be dependent on the other 26 countries to pass it. That is where it is agreed. The IFA and ICMSA both have sister groups in Europe and the witnesses are in Europe more than we are. Are they getting feedback? We are told that we would almost have to stand on our heads to convince our European counterparts to agree to this derogation and that we are asking them to vote for us to have an unfair advantage over them. I am interested to hear our guests’ feedback from Europe. They are members of larger groups, they have sister groups out there and they spend a lot of time there. What feedback are they getting from the people who will ultimately decide this? Is there animosity there and a feeling that they will not give the Irish an unfair advantage?

There was a lot of talk earlier about slurry storage capacity. I could have spread slurry since 30 January. That is a month and a day today. All I have still is paddy fields and it will be at least another month. How much storage would I have to have before I could get out on the field for the sake of getting out on it? Then I am not getting the best benefit from it because the growing season will be another month down the line from where we are. I do not want to seem as though I am trying to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut but I have been beating the drum for anaerobic digestion as a possible answer. If when my capacity is full, I could bring my slurry to an anaerobic digester, I would get back the by-product which in itself is a fertiliser and I can store it in a hay shed and use it when climatic growth conditions are at their best. I know that is a long way down the line but it is a conversation that needs to be had and it needs to be expedited. Rather than investing in extra slurry tanks, the money that would go in TAMS to ten farmers would go a long way into getting the idea up and running. Will our guests comment on where they see anaerobic digestion going and that type of argument?

Mr. Francie Gorman

I will ask Mr. Buckley to deal with the second. On the political part, our big issue here is not convincing farm organisations in Europe about this. It is about convincing our fellow political masters in Europe. The derogation is hugely important to us.

Senator Paul Daly

Sorry, the question was on the feedback the organisations are getting from the other organisations about their political masters. I know well they will not find it hard to convince their farm organisation colleagues. What feedback are they giving of the governments in their countries?

Mr. Francie Gorman

The feedback I have been getting is that it is difficult. They say it is difficult to convince our fellow members of the European Union to give us the derogation. The same was the case about the review when the Commission came over here in September. The job is to get the other governments in Europe on side because they do not have an interest in it. That is a job for the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, our Commissioner and our Government. It is a job for the industry, farmers as well. I made the point earlier that we are all at one here. I 100% get that. Mr. Drennan and I appreciate we have the support of the committee on this. Teagasc needs to be involved, as does the processing industry. We need to sit down with the EPA too and see exactly what it is telling us we have to do to get delivery of this. When we look at water, what is stable water? What constitutes good water quality compared to poor water quality? If you go from poor to moderate or drop from very good down to good, what effect does that have on getting the derogation re-approved? The EPA needs to be on the pitch and outline to us exactly what we need to do or what it feels unhappy with. I am absolutely convinced that if we come with a plan and show how our measures are improving water quality or stabilising it and if the Government backs it, then I believe it will be delivered. I cannot see a situation where if the Taoiseach and Tánaiste go to the Commission and make a sufficiently strong case that we need to hold on to our derogation and its vital national importance, that it will not be delivered. Tourism and farming are the two indigenous industries in this country. We do not have a heavy industry to rely on. It is crucial for rural communities across the country to hold on to this. But we need to put our best foot forward as farmers, processors and politicians. We need to sing from the one hymn sheet, put the plan together and go with it.

Mr. Tadhg Buckley

We do hear that the derogation is giving us a competitive advantage. There is a lack of understanding on that and it is something we will continue to work on. As we said earlier, it is just levelling the playing pitch because we are at a disadvantage compared to our European counterparts because we have very high costs of production, apart from grass. We have the highest concentrate feed prices in Europe. We have gone through all of these already. Every EU member state has its priorities and they differ across the European Union. In Poland, for example, Ukrainian grain was a huge issue and had a massive impact on its agricultural economy. We need to understand that this does not give us a free pass or put us way ahead. It just enables us to compete internationally.

There are a couple of things on the storage requirement. First, a review by Teagasc is ongoing to examine the levels of production of slurry from animals on a weekly basis. That is showing that we are probably underestimating slurry production on the dairy cow side. That will probably finish in May. That will probably lead to farmers being required to put in more storage in time. That needs to be supported from a grant aid perspective as ourselves and IFA have said. It is at a 70% level.

As well as that, we cannot say we will increase the storage period until we know the outcome of the review. That will dictate the levels of storage put in over the long term. Aligned to that, if we want farmers to make that investment, we have to give them certainty, as we spoke about earlier.

On anaerobic digestion, I completely agree with the Senator. The issue is, as Mr. Murphy said, time is not our friend. We are still waiting for a biomethane strategy from the Government in terms of the strategy on anaerobic digestion. In any country in Europe where anaerobic digestion has worked, it has got a proper State-driven policy framework to drive the industry. It is part of the solution, for sure, and needs to be accelerated at policy level so we can start developing it. The problem is it will take years.

Mr. Denis Drennan

On the issue of derogation and support across Europe, there was a level of animosity a couple of years ago when Ireland was driving on and the shackles came off with the milk quota. We were increasing production by a huge amount and were a large exporter. That caused a problem but it has died down completely and we reduced our milk production last year by between 4% and 5%. Across Europe, supply is falling off a cliff at the moment because of the cost of production and the rules and regulations. Much of the frustration and protests come from the amount of extra rules and regulations coming in. There is not really an issue with other countries supporting us, if the Commission recommends something and we make a good enough case for it. When you travel across Europe and meet European counterparts, they understand we have a unique situation in Ireland in that we can grow grass almost 365 days per year and do not have huge reliance on growing maize or cereal crops to feed our animals. We grow 95% of what our cows eat in the form of grass or grass silage. Other farmers in Europe get that we have a unique system, climate and ability to feed our cows so there is not huge animosity out there. If we go with a strong enough case and the Commission recommends it, it will get across the line and be voted through. The main thing is we do not put caveats and conditions on it that are not realistic or fair to Irish farmers and that will penalise them.

On anaerobic digestion, I think the Senator might be mixing up anaerobic digestion and separators. If you put 10,000 gallons of slurry in an aerobic digester, it will not be empty by 1 January. It will be filled up with slurry. It is a continuous cycle. In most cases, if you draw in 10,000 gallons of slurry, you have to draw out 10,000 gallons of digestate. The separator I think the Senator is referring to would separate the solids from the liquid and can be stored more easily. We should be looking at that option. We are a bit down the line on that but it could be an issue. Anaerobic digesters are seen as the halo that will solve all these problems but once you draw in slurry you have to have somewhere to draw out digestate so they are not the sliver bullet, unfortunately.

Mr. John Enright

We are members of the European Milk Board, which has dairy farmers from across all member states in Europe, and we meet them regularly. Mr. Drennan is right there is no animosity towards derogation at this stage. They have a completely different system of production in general. They are indoors systems based on grains as opposed to grass. They do not require the derogation in many cases because they have a much bigger tillage system and sector. They can export the slurry. They are tillage farmers, in many cases.

As Mr. Buckley mentioned, we need a Government strategy to make anaerobic digestion economically viable. The planning system needs to work for it as well. We are having difficulty getting planning permission for a slatted tank. We need to get the planning system working properly.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I thank the IFA and the ICMSA for coming in here. We were circulated their papers, read them and are aware of the concerns. The committee is hearing loud and clear the frustration and anger of farm organisations generally, not only in the committee but in the wider political sphere. We see across Europe the frustration about over-regulation. Agri-politics, as I said to someone coming in here, is becoming very divided. Agri-politics is alive and well and I hope it continues to be. It always needs to be at the cutting edge of politics. We have had many great advocates in both organisations who have gone into mainstream politics from an initial interest in agriculture. That is always welcome and great to see. I am somewhat concerned the agri-lobby sector could become divided and subdivided. Senator Daly said we collaborate and work well in the committee. We have many setbacks and frustration but that is part of politics. The tension of the bull wire is always important. I always value the witnesses' organisations and the work they do. Around the election of the new president of the IFA, there was lobbying and fringe meetings. Many of my family and friends are members of the IFA. I saw in that a re-energised IFA - I am not ignoring the ICMSA but I did not observe its election structures as much. That is a good thing. Well done and I wish Mr. Gorman good luck. The IFA is in good stead with him as head. I see a new bounce and vibrancy in IFA membership among the people I know, particularly in the midlands.

The witnesses have spoken about confidence. We have to dust ourselves off, get back and fight again. Over-regulation is a concern. The president of the IFA raised in his submission the investment in slurry, which is expensive, and the importance of time, investment and capital. "Certainty" is the big word because farmers need to know where they will be in terms of milking their cows in four years' time, projecting farm practices and investments, and if it is even worth their while. Those are serious considerations.

Planning permission was raised. I and one other member of this committee also sit on the Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government. We have the biggest piece of legislation on planning going through these Houses in the coming weeks. The witnesses' organisations have their political contacts. The Bill is currently with the select committee. There are 1,500 amendments to the Bill being worked through. The witnesses have an opportunity to get a briefing on the Bill, use their contacts with their legal people here and engage with the planning institute and other organisations on shaping the outcomes of issues around the Planning and Development Bill. It is not good enough to have people objecting for the sake of objecting.

We all have a responsibility in terms of water. That has been emphasised. A big takeaway for me tonight is the issue around fair distribution of responsibility. There was a talk the day before yesterday about wells from the UCD environmental group. It highlighted issues relating to wells, including rural and also waterways in urban areas. There are real challenges around quality of water. It is about having a fair, balanced playing field in distribution of responsibility for delivery of water for agriculture, human use or whatever.

I am with the witnesses. It is important they are here and talking to us. It is important they get heated and exercised because that keeps us on our toes and that is not a bad thing. Do the witnesses have any statistics on issues around planning and the number of planning applications? Do they see trends in certain counties? There are 31 planning authorities. It helps our case for looking at them. I sit on the joint Oireachtas committee on planning so am fairly up on that subject and hugely interested in it. If there are serial objectors, we need to look at that. That is not that difficult to find out. We can access much of the information on the board's website.

I think there are real opportunities in the planning and development Bill, which is on Committee Stage, so it is early in the process. There are opportunities for agriculture in a whole range of things like that or rural housing. There are a lot of challenges in rural and agricultural life that the witnesses and the members of their organisations have an interest in. My final point is again to the IFA. It says the European Commission is currently undertaking a Europe-wide public consultation, and states that it is critical Ireland uses the opportunity to stress the critical importance of the derogation to Ireland and emphasise the long-term retention and so on for the whole industry. I accept and understand that. What more would they like the committee to do? How can we collaborate more? I do not think they need to convince us of the importance of the derogation. How can we collaborate more strongly to make a case? We cannot give up on politics or processes. We have to work within them to maximise, and bring people together rather than subdivide and divide because we are going nowhere if we do that. I say well done. I am really interested in their submissions and they should keep the pressure on.

Mr. Francie Gorman

We are certainly not divided on the issue. Oftentimes farm organisations have different views on different issues. However, on this one it is quite clear that everyone wants the same outcome. That is to be welcomed. The Senator talks about fairness and responsibility for water quality. No sector will be financially impacted as badly as the agricultural sector if we lose that derogation. It came from 250 kg N/ha down to 220 kg N/ha, and the science shows us there will be no discernible improvement in water quality. We are looking for fair play. We believe the measures we have taken on farms will deliver. We need them to be given time. To move things on at farm level, we want the EPA to be clear what its ask is and how it goes about assessing water quality. We want grant aid for all farmers. Today, if you are in derogation you are not entitled to grant aid - sorry, if you do not have the required slurry storage capacity on your farm, you are not entitled to grant aid. That needs to be addressed. The planning issue is crucial. If you are going to deliver improvements in water quality, you are waiting 12 months, 18 months or two years for a planning application to be approved. You are then waiting another year for permission to get TAMS approval, and maybe another year after that before you are finally paid for the development on your farm. You are four years down the road. We need certainty of where we are going in four or five years' time to give farmers the confidence to invest in their farms. What we want from our political masters, if you call them that, is for them to be on the same pitch as us. We are not looking for a free pass here. We fully understand the need to have good water quality in this country. As Mr. Buckley said earlier, we actually have it, but sometimes that is not said. I have seen water courses in Europe. When I compare them to what we have there is no comparison, even visually. It is credible to think that if we can come forward with a common plan that we will hold on to this derogation, and we have to hold on to it. I know there is a lot of frustration at farm level at the moment about being regulated out of business. This is a red line issue.

Mr. Denis Drennan

The question was what can the committee do. We are looking for flexibility around the edges of the derogation. We have a short timeframe before we apply for the next derogation. We are probably looking at that process beginning in 12 or 13 months' time. We do not have time to let the grass grow under our feet. However, with what is happening with both planning and TAMS, we have lost 14 months and counting at this point. If water quality is such an important issue, why have we dragged our feet and not got the planning? I accept the Oireachtas is involved in the planning legislation that is being changed at the moment. We certainly need to eliminate people who are allowed to object to farmers, or any individual, doing the right thing. It makes no sense that somebody can be dragged through a system where you have to do an appropriate assessment on a simple job of extending your farmyard and doing the right thing to protect water quality. It makes no sense. From a European point of view, it would be helpful if this committee could write a letter to the Commission to see if flexibility could be given in lieu of the disastrous document that was signed. The risk of becoming eutrophic stated in Article 12 is the one that is catching most of the country. It is not an increase in nitrates. It is not a drop in water quality, it is just at risk of becoming eutrophic. Even if you are part of a catchment, and at the source of the catchment, and your water is pristine you are still dragged down by this decision. That makes absolutely no sense. It is subcatchment level. We need to look at the catchment, what is wrong in the catchment and what we need to do to solve it. There are people in parts of that catchment where water is pristine or of good quality, or is of stable good quality or improving. How can we justify those people being penalised?

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I thank the witnesses for appearing. I have met Mr. Gorman before and I wish Mr. Drennan the best of luck. The witnesses spoke about a few things and we need to be honest with them about those. The part about objections to planning is going on at the moment. The problem is that every council has a little document sent by the Department of housing. The witnesses should bear one thing in mind. Deputy Cahill, Senators Lombard and Daly and I went to Brussels and saw the Commissioner. To be frank, and in fairness to the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, our biggest problem is that the Department of the environment is looking after this. While we give out, it is actually the Minister for the environment, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, who have to fight a battle for us as well. I worry a bit about that battle because you need every soldier going the one way to win the war.

I turn to planning first. There is no point in codding the witnesses because I have gone through this all of my life. There is a guideline document in every council. It states that anyone within 15 km of a designated site can object. They might sometimes bring it down to 12 km, 10 km or 5 km. What is catching us around the country is the habitats directive and the interpretation of it that Ireland has. That will stay the same until it is changed at ministerial level in Europe with an amendment. The houses of people in Lough Funshinagh will get flooded but funnily enough, they say eagles dying are more important than a person being drowned. We have the gate left open for someone to be able to object, to put it honestly. Everyone has a right. We can give out about someone objecting, but the problem is we have the credentials set on what we are doing. We need to be honest on that.

As I said, Deputy Cahill, Senators Lombard and Daly and I went to meet the Commissioner. The Commissioner had almost as much say as me or Senator Lombard or any of us had for a simple reason. There was a legal person and an adviser, or whatever they were. We basically sent a bomb over to them for them to explode. That is what we did. When the report was sent over, it is on legislation and the die was cast. That is being honest. There is no point in us codding farmers. We need collaboration between the EPA, Teagasc - as I think Mr. Gorman said - and the Government. In west Cork, where Senator Lombard is, they did research with Teagasc and it worked out well. From my understanding there are four different jumps that have to be jumped and you cannot go down on one of them. If you were doing your leaving certificate and got three out of four questions right you got 75%. That was still a pass. In this, if you go down on one jump it is game over. These are some of the things that need to be changed.

The witnesses might as well hear straight out what was said to us.

CAP was starting to be negotiated and they said straight out to us that day that they believe it will go more environmental. There was a bit of a ding-dong on Twitter and all that craic about the derogation, but it was gone. The 250 kg N/ha down to 220 kg N/ha was gone because we had sent the stuff over to do it. If we send anything back that is in any way doubtful, they will love it because the mood over there was more environmental. We were also told - any of the members who were there will confirm this - that other countries were going down or losing it. As the witnesses know, other countries will not like Ireland having a competitive advantage. They did not realise we are an island, however, unlike the rest of them on mainland Europe, and it costs more to get things on. Research on this was done in Timoleague. If we are worried about the environment, it should be a no-brainer for storage for all farmers to be covered under TAMS. We agree on that.

I have done a fair bit of looking at AD. I am sick of hearing politicians say AD is going to solve everything. AD will solve nothing and will never happen until there is a 9 cent, 11 cent or 13 cent feed-in tariff. It costs €20 million to build an AD plant. Mr. Drennan referred to this earlier. There is a system that can be used to dry it but it costs a lot of money and energy. If we to decide to do this, the funding will have to be put into it. We keep talking about it. No more than offshore wind, it is like something we are dreaming about. Until the funding is put in, we will not see AD popping up everywhere. The €20 million it costs does not come around the bend at any stage.

There is another problem coming down the line. We need to realise that a lot of people do not milk cows but this is going to affect them. At the moment, the plan is for 500,000 ha. We only have 4 million ha left, approximately. We are not going to make any more. We will hardly take it out of the sea. There is 500,000 ha proposed for forestry between now and 2050. That is 1.25 million ha gone if the dreams they have come true.

On the nature restoration law, even if we look at it at best, we have 70,000 ha, 80,000 ha or 100,000 ha in solar farms and if the derogation kicks in, we will be in real trouble in food production. The tillage people have to survive as well. We are in real trouble in respect of food production. I will be honest. I hope the European elections bring about a huge change in Europe. That is what we will need, unless we get different Ministers. I am not blaming the Minister for agriculture for this. It is the Minister at the Department of the environment or the Department of housing who goes over and puts that forward. It is an awfully awkward way of doing things. It affects farmers, but the Department of the environment looks after it. The witnesses' organisations do not have the input into it that they would like to have.

The committee will do a report. To be honest, I cannot see there being many dissenting voices in terms of ways of resolving the issue. It will be supportive of it, I think. Once we prepare the report, though, it might put a bin. There is no legal basis for the report to be adhered to. If everyone is pushing the one way, however, we might get the car up the hill.

Do the witnesses recommend that a feed-in tariff of 9 cent, 11 cent or 13 cent be brought in for AD? Do they recommend that a body be set up with farmer organisations, the EPA and Teagasc to give a guideline on how things should be done, as they were done in Timoleague, to which Senator Lombard referred? What other recommendations do they have for the committee? The problem is that if a farmer is going to build a slatted tank and TAMS opens for it tomorrow morning, it will take three or four months. It will be next winter before the farmer has the tank ready for extra storage. We need time on this, to be frank. If different bodies have to work together, more time is needed. I have an awful fear that if the bureaucrats we spoke to in Europe get their way, the 220 kg N/ha is gone. Being honest, I think that is their plan. The witnesses are as well to hear the thinking we are hearing in Europe. They probably hear it when they meet the people in Europe. What four recommendations do they have for the committee?

Mr. Francie Gorman

I welcome the Deputy's comments regarding the derogation. It is very important that we hold that derogation. It affects farmers in all parts of the country and in every sector. What I will say about our political masters in Europe is that the past month has shown that if they want to do something, they can do it. They amended our methane targets up to 2040 and got rid of the sustainable use regulation. They can do it if they want to.

The Deputy asked for four recommendations. The first is to keep the pressure on our political masters in Europe and on our Commissioner. The nitrates review in 2022 was flawed. We cannot go back there again. We need to ensure the review of the next nitrates action programme is done in a proper way. The second recommendation is to give us time. The third thing is to give us certainty about where we go four or five years down the road. Farmers cannot be expected to plan based on a target that is one or two years down the road. The fourth thing is that all farmers should be eligible for grant aid to put that slurry storage capacity in place. As Mr. Murphy noted earlier, it is a national asset. AD will not solve the problem for us in this nitrates review because it will not be done quickly enough. If we had a proper policy around it 20 years ago, we could possibly say that AD might be part of the answer but in terms of holding onto this derogation, AD is not the answer because it will not happen quickly enough. The whole question of AD, forestry and solar feeds into the whole land use area, even around nature restoration and rewetting. That is probably a bigger debate we need to have now for the next five to ten years but it will not sort this problem for us. What will sort it for us is to get delivery on the issues we have raised. We can demonstrate to the European Union or a Commissioner that what we are doing will deliver a stabilisation or improvement in water quality. We have to point out to them the importance of holding onto that derogation. As Mr. Buckley stated, it is the one advantage we have over our fellow Europeans in terms of how we produce food. It is important to state that we are a food-producing nation. That is what we do. It is what we should continue to do. We do not have heavy industry to offset our emissions in terms of how we meet our targets. We have to be given credit for that as well. We produce food more sustainably than is done in most places on the planet. If we do not do it here, it will be done somewhere else, which will cause more damage to the planet in terms of emissions. I know we are talking about water quality here. It is important that we get time for those measures to work.

Mr. Denis Drennan

If the Deputy allows me, I will provide five recommendations, rather than four. For the first recommendation, I refer to March 2022 and the interim review that was agreed. Article 12 of that derogation decision was an absolute disaster. It allowed the risk of waters becoming eutrophic to be a term and condition of the scheme. We should be looking at trends, not snapshots. The Department signed up to something that compared water quality in 2021 with water quality in 2022. That is not a trend; it is a snapshot. There is a need to look at trends in water quality over three, five or six years, at least. It is about the timing when that sort of thing is being looked at.

The second thing is that slurry storage is always an issue. Planning and TAMS need to be sorted out. We are in a complete log jam with both of them. We have lost 14 months, with nothing done as a result of issues with planning and TAMS.

The third thing we need is a catchment-by-catchment assessment of what the problems in each catchment are. There is no point in just lumping in that agriculture is 60% of the risk. Every river in the country flows through land so, obviously, what happens on the land is a risk and the land itself is a risk. There is a significant build up of nitrogen in all land and a weather event can release that nitrogen, be it a drought or a flood. We need a catchment-by-catchment assessment that looks at what the problems in the catchment are and the right measure to fix them, be it municipal wastewater, agriculture, industry or septic tanks. Everybody needs their shoulders pointing in the right direction, trying to shove the car up the hill and not having somebody sitting on the bonnet when they are trying to shove it up the hill.

The fourth issue is time. The new measures need time to work. There is a lag time. If you look at the agriculture catchments programme, they will tell you that when you put in a measure, there is a lag of between six months and six years when it comes to a measure showing an effect because the measure will take time to filter through the system.

The fifth thing we need is to eliminate a lot of the bureaucracy involved in agriculture. Twenty years ago, a Teagasc adviser was actually an adviser and not a bureaucrat filling out forms for the farmer. This is the way it has gone. If a farmer wants advice on fertiliser, a slurry application or how to implement the nutrient management plan, the adviser is tied up with derogation for the first two months of the year and for the next three months, he is tied up with basic income support for sustainability, BISS, and complementary redistributive income support for sustainability, CRISS, applications and then he is probably looking at an ACRES open date or a tranche of TAMS coming up. Both the agricultural sustainability support and advisory programme, ASSAP, and the agricultural catchments programme give us the tools and show us the way forward as regards how to improve water quality but that advice needs to be disseminated to farmers about what is the best and the right thing to do in the right place to start delivering results. What we then need is for the farmer to be rewarded for those results. It cannot be a case of "tails, you lose and heads, you win", which is what is happening at the moment. Look at the ASSAP areas where ASSAP has worked and water quality has improved, yet those farmers are still being clobbered with a cut. Even though they did what they were asked to do and worked collaboratively to improve water quality, their derogation was still cut.

Deputy Johnny Mythen

I thank the witnesses from both organisations for appearing before us. All the questions have been asked. We listened to the witnesses and took in a lot of what they said. They put their case very strongly. Food security and its importance to Europe is being discussed. The IFA presentation stated that Ireland’s cereal area declined by 16,000 ha and now constitutes less than 6% of Ireland’s agricultural land. This is a serious statistic. What it is telling us is very worrying. Large farmers are making millions but the average farm has 30 ha or 50 ha. Have the witnesses got figures about the 30 ha farms. I have met some of these farmers here and they have told me they are giving up. They do not want their youngsters to take over because of the uncertainty here and that is not fair. What is going to happen in 2025? What if something happens to the derogation? How can you plan something if you do not know what is going to happen? It is a major issue.

I agree with Senator Paul Daly that it is not a silver bullet but anaerobic digestion is part of the solution. We must understand that new technologies and new things will appear. A huge plant was opened in Monaghan two or three weeks. It is amazing stuff worth €20 million. It can work so we should not put it in the basket. It needs to be there and needs a lot of help.

The battle is with the EU Commissioner. Ireland differs from other countries because we rely so heavily on agriculture. There is €17.3 billion in the dairy sector alone and €6.3 billion in exports of dairy products. As we all know, you cannot make more land, so land is very scarce. We are a small island so our derogation should show that. We are going to have to stand up for ourselves more in Europe. The situation is serious. It is very worrying for me to read the presentations. A small farmer is going to be crushed, so something must be done.

Do farmers get the proper data for the catchment areas? Is the EPA responsible for that? Who is responsible for providing the data? The witnesses said a farmer could be 20 km, 30 km, 40 km or 50 km away but could be condemned as much as a farmer who is committing the offence, which is wrong.

Mr. John Murphy

The EPA is responsible for catchment areas. My understanding is that it does not recognise those figures. That is a Teagasc programme set up and funded by the State in 2010 to gather information but the EPA does not use those statistics. It uses its own figures, so we have issues with that. There should be more collaboration. We are told the EPA is not using them in the equation that is sent to Europe.

Deputy Johnny Mythen

Has it given a reason for that?

Mr. John Murphy

It is because it is not the official body.

Deputy Johnny Mythen

The science does not matter-----

Mr. John Murphy

Of course, but the EPA is the official statutory body to report on these issues and it does not recognise those figures coming from those bodies, so that is an issue for us. There is an issue of confidence. We are not going to lose the derogation. This country is not heavily stocked with livestock. It is not heavily stocked with people either. It is not a densely populated livestock country as a whole, so there is no reason we cannot hold on to our derogation. It has been stated several times previously. It is a unique climate and a unique grass-based system, so as regards the idea that we have something special from the Commission, we have what is special. We have the climate and we have position to be able to hold on to this derogation and stock it at a higher level.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Lombard will take the Chair as there is a vote in the Dáil.

Senator Tim Lombard took the Chair.

Mr. John Murphy

The balance of agriculture in this country is under serious threat. We need a tillage industry and a livestock industry. We need all our industries to pull together. In one fell swoop, you could ruin an indigenous industry like the dairy industry and the other industries. It has been happening for a while and started 18 months ago with the land rental market. People should realise the gravity of what is happening. We need to pull together on this. I think it can and will be done. We have political paymasters. The Commission was mentioned. It must realise what is happening here as well.

Deputy Johnny Mythen

I have to go to a vote.

Mr. Francie Gorman

The point should be made as well about the smaller family farm referred to by Deputy Mythen. I met a farmer at the Virginia Agricultural Show earlier this year who between banding and nitrates, would be asked to reduce his cow numbers from 24 to 17. That is unacceptable. It does put the smaller family farm in danger in a big way.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

I welcome Mr. Gorman and congratulate him and Mr. Drennan on becoming presidents of their respective associations. For the sake of farmers, I wish them well in their new roles. I will take up where Mr. Gorman left off about the small farms. It is terrible that this is going to affect small farmers.

I know of a farmer with 58 cows who has to reduce to 44. I was on the phone to him a while ago. He has a son. He worked all his life and built up his place. It is modern and he has everything right, and there is nothing wrong as far as the farmyard or anything like that is concerned. Years ago, my father helped him to get an underpass across the main Rathmore–Millstreet road. That was one of the issues he had but it was sorted out. To get to the other half of his farm, he did not want to have to cross the road. It was costly for him at the time. He certainly wanted his place to continue in his name but his son has decided, because of what has happened and other things, to continue with his apprenticeship and go down that route instead of coming back to the farm.

This happened before with small farmers. It hurt me very much. As the witnesses know, we have a small pub in a small village. I knew every fellow’s story at the time in question and about the small fellows who had to get out of milk production because of the quota. What was very wrong was that farmers with quotas of 10,000 or 15,000 gallons were limited and could not expand. They could not live on their quotas because of various requirements and the increase in the standard of living. They could not stay with it and were not allowed to increase their quotas. At the same time, I remember too well seeing farmers with quotas of 100,000 gallons complaining on television. A fellow with 300 cows, by comparison with someone with 58, still has room to live if he reduces a bit. However, the man I have mentioned and his son have no hope. It is very wrong.

When I hear that we are depending on the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Deputy O’Gorman, and the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Ryan, to get us out of the mess we are in, undo the knot and address the problem we have, I say we are up against a concrete wall. It is very wrong. Every elected Member and people who are not elected are entitled to their opinions but it is very wrong that the Green tail is now wagging the dog. I cannot understand why the Government allows this to happen and it hurts small fellows like the man I have mentioned.

When I hear about water quality, I get very worried. There are many more forces at play than farming if the water is wrong. There are no treatment plants in 30 or 40 settlements around Kerry. We are roaring and shouting at the Government to do something about it, and that is just in Kerry alone. Some of the plants we have are not up to scratch. Take Castleisland, for example. I have documents that belonged to my father above in an ould shed on the farm. They date back to 1986, when people were looking for an extension to the sewage scheme in Castleisland. In nearly 50 years, there has been no sign of it. Let nobody tell me the water quality is not affected as much by septic tanks and their proliferation in certain places as farming. This is actually in the town. You might say something different if it were out in the country. I am referring to an extension of the town; it is part of the town. The houses all have septic tanks and at the same time we are going to blame the farmers in the area. There is good land around Castleisland. There are good farmers around Castleisland and they have persevered, but it is very wrong that we are not being listened to by Europe or the Government here. There are other forces at play regarding the water, and that has to be recognised.

Planning is an issue. There are good farmers who cannot get planning permission. There are objections and serial objectors. I hear what is being asked for regarding exemptions. I will be asking for it. It is a good idea. If Liebherr, which is on the national secondary road, can expand its business, a farmer should be entitled to expand his facilities in the same way to cater for his needs. The TAMS grant, other grants and the VAT requirement have us driven mad in our office since last September or October. There is no point in the world in any Minister saying he will give a grant for storage or whatever if the VAT cannot be got back. One is cancelling out the other, which is not fair. I and others have been raising that. It is very wrong.

The big elephant in the room is sequestration. If you stood on a height in our little parish of Kilgarvan – I have taken the media up there – you would see we have only a few dots of green fields here and there. The rest includes trees, bushes, scrub and every kind of rubbish. You could not put out a bag of fertiliser or travel on it. I include the area over the hills into west Cork, which we are near, all the way back to Cahersiveen, up to Mangerton Mountain and the periphery of all the parishes. I ask the new presidents to fight this. Why do we have to wait for sequestration to be measured? We were given a date of 2027 and now there is no account of it. How can we be penalised if we are not acknowledged for what we are sequestering? The whole thing is absolute rubbish.

Mr. Francie Gorman

I will make a brief comment on it. What is really penalising and frustrating the small family farmer is the fact that the reduction in the stocking rate will not deliver an improvement in water quality that will make any great difference. Rather, it will impose a huge financial penalty on the farms and in some cases force them out of business. There is no question about that.

I will make a quick comment on planning. Not alone do we want the exemption but we also need the planning process to be reformed properly. It is not fit for purpose. As the Deputy said, there are serial objectors holding up planning applications. It is unacceptable. They are clogging up the system. That is one of the first things that needs to be addressed. I agree with the Deputy.

Mr. Denis Drennan

I agree totally with the Deputy. The small farmer is the one who is hit because he or she does not have the ability to reduce and at the same time remain viable. We made that point earlier. We gave an example of a farm of 35 ha, which is only 87 acres. The farmer is at the maximum. With good land, he can have 98 cows. If we go to 170 kg N/ha, he will be down to 56 cows. With this number, how could he raise a family, pay bills, pay the mortgage and put kids through college?

I agree totally with the Deputy on sequestration but the problem is that no matter what we do as farmers on our farms at the moment, we cannot get credit for it. If I plant a forest on my farm, I cannot get credit from it to put against my farm emissions. Forestry is regarded as a change of land use. If I rewet a bog on my farm, I cannot get credit as it is deemed a change of land use. If I put up a wind turbine or put solar panels on my farm, the credit goes to the energy sector. If I had €20 million in loose cash and built an anaerobic digester, I would get no credit for it as it would go to the energy sector. This is the problem. Farmers need the politicians to change the rules. Everything I do wrong is held against me but, where all the things I could possibly do right are concerned, some other sector benefits. That is the unfairness of the system.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

We might as well be in a dictatorship with some fellow like Castro. We could not be any worse. Mr. Drennan was right about all the things he listed.

I am aware of those things. It is absolutely terrible what we are enduring.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is a point well made.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

The Leas-Chathaoirleach may be in the Government but I am not blaming him personally. The Leas-Chathaoirleach might be a party to it in some way.

It is absolutely ridiculous what is going on. The farmers and the ol' cow are being blamed for everything.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I thank the Deputy. Will Senator Paul Daly be brief?

Senator Paul Daly

Yes. I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach.

I ran out of time initially. I only want to get a comment from both organisations. No doubt they will be aware Tirlán is fronting a water-quality project in the Slaney catchment area in collaboration with Teagasc and the local authority water programme of Carlow, Wicklow and Wexford. Is that the road to go? The processing industry has as much to lose here as anybody if this goes the wrong way. Should it have a greater role to play? Is that a good initiative? Will it work? Should there be more similar industry-led projects happening? They might comment on the project that is happening and the potential going forward.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Can I ask Mr. Carroll to comment on that?

Mr. Eamon Carroll

I thank the Senator. I saw that report only the other day. There was great work put into it. It was a detailed report, but they have a body of work to do going forward, primarily because there is the question - and coming back to the point that Mr. Drennan has been making - of where the problem areas are that need to be addressed. In that regard, there are not enough consultants out there to advise and do what they should be doing. It was a good report, but I did not get a chance to read it in full because we only got it yesterday morning.

Mr. Denis Drennan

That is exactly the way we are going. Ireland is in trouble for not having the fourth river basin management plan up and running where they were supposed to do a catchment-by-catchment assessment. They have been reprimanded by the EU on this.

On Senator Paul Daly's point that the processors have as much lose here, he would want to think whose money is invested in the processors. We are ending up now, not only with the farmers making huge investments on their farms but the processors investing farmers' money in doing what they are doing. There is a double-whammy here for the farmer. Not alone will they end up having to pay for the investments on their own farm from fewer cows or fewer animals, whatever the sector they are in, but they will also have to pay for a few white elephants because the processing capacity will not be needed. We will end up with some of the processing facilities closing down but they still have to be paid for. That will still have to come out of a smaller milk pool. Certainly, that is what we are looking for. What we need is what Glanbia is looking for. Glanbia is seeing that. The Slaney is one of the most polluted rivers in the country, yet there is only 6% of the land in the catchment of the Slaney being used for dairying.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is a point well made. I call Mr. Buckley.

Mr. Tadhg Buckley

About the processing side of it, in our address we outlined what we think could be the estimated job losses and the impact. It is massive. Obviously, it is a huge issue for them as well. As Mr. Drennan said, farmers nearly own all the processing sector in Ireland.

Milk supply in Ireland dropped by over 4% in 2023. We are down 365 million litres on 2022. It is a massive drop. People cannot take it for granted that we will continue to sustain the milk supply that we had in 2021-2022. We have seen a big drop this year.

Sentiment among dairy farmers is not good. Sentiment used always be related to milk price but it is actually not now. Obviously, it is hugely important, but it is the regulation side of it and the lack of certainty. It was commented earlier on. If you are a young person now and you are looking at the sector, you are there wondering whether this is a sector you want to get into. That, from my perspective, is an uncomfortable position for us to be in if we want to make sure. There is huge money invested in this sector, both at on-farm and at processing levels, and if we want to make sure we do not have stranded assets all over the country, be it on-farm or at processor levels, we have got to work together to make sure we do not see a removal of this derogation. It cannot happen.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I thank Senator Paul Daly for that.

I refer to the future, that is, the next seven or eight months. We are looking at a derogation that will be decided in the next 13 to 14 months. What tangible processes can be put in place so that there is change in those months? Storage cannot be provided. There were huge issues in TAMS not being done. We are very tight on time here to make real significant changes. We will have the Minister in at some stage on this. In the next 18 months, when we have run this derogation through, what can we deliver on the ground a one of the key issues?

The second issue I might ask our guests to comment on is the proposed changes on maps. We will have a mapping change in the next few months. If that happens, the sentiment among farmers, including dairy farmers, could be a huge issue as well.

I will ask both Mr. Buckley and Mr. Drennan to comment quickly.

Mr. Tadhg Buckley

One of the key aspects is that we are in limbo here about the farmers who are on 250 kg N/ha. There is a lot of talk. We have 9% of the area still at 250 kg N/ha. My view is that they need to be provided with certainty about what will happen next year for them. In my view, they should be left at 250 kg N/ha until the end of the current NAP because at least that will take some pressure off the landmarks. The one thing we could do there is give them certainty. Obviously, we spoke about planning and TAMS being another key issue in terms of fast-tracking on both of those issues.

Mr. Denis Drennan

There is frustration and anger and a down-beat attitude out there among farmers. Something we have been looking for for the past year and a half is around the excretion rate of the calf. It has been scientifically proven that it can be changed for the first 12 weeks of the calf's life and also the dropping in the banding that can result from farmers who are willing to feed a lower protein feed during the summer months. We need to get those across the line immediately to give some hope to farmers and lessen the blow of the 250 kg N/ha to 220 kg N/ha cut. Then we need to look at the right measure in the right place.

On the planning scenario and the TAMS, we have lost 14 months. We have now 14 months left. We have wasted half the time available to us to solve this problem and we need Government to sort it out immediately.

Mr. Francie Gorman

A long-term approach needs to be taken to this and that we do not only look a year or a year-and-a-half down the line. If we take a long-term approach, all the other issues can be sorted around that.

Finally, I thank the committee for having us in. It was important for me that both organisations were in together on this. We must adopt a common approach to this and ensure we retain our derogation, with the ambition of getting it back to where we were. I thank the Chairman and the rest of the committee for having us in.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I thank the representatives of both the IFA and the ICMSA for contributing to the debate this evening. On behalf of the committee, I thank the witnesses. We will now suspend the meeting to allow witnesses for the next phase of the meeting to come in.

Sitting suspended at 8.08 p.m. and resumed at 8.13 p.m.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I remind witnesses and members to turn off their mobile phones. Before we begin, I bring it to their attention that witnesses giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means a witness has a full defence in any defamation action in respect of anything they say at committee meetings. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed by the Chair to cease giving evidence on an issue. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, where reasonable, no adverse comments should be made against an identified third person or entity.

I welcome, from Macra na Feirme, Ms Elaine Houlihan, national president; Dr. Liam Hanrahan, chair of the agriculture affairs committee; and Dr. Maria Snell, senior research and policy executive. I invite them to make their presentation to the Oireachtas.

Ms Elaine Houlihan

I thank the Chair and committee for the invitation to address them. Macra na Feirme welcomes the opportunity to present on Ireland’s nitrates action programme from a young farmer perspective. Young farmer participation, along with that of other relevant actors, is key to assuring the successful design of the agri-environment legislation to achieve its goals, including delivering on water quality. We are the generation that will implement measures over the short and long term, giving measures longevity. The importance of the nitrates derogation for young farmers is an issue that needs careful consideration in the context of generational renewal within the farming sector, but also with respect to the development and sustainability of rural Ireland. Young farmers, therefore, need to be given a voice and consulted during the review, development and implementation stages of policy at EU, national and regional levels. It is critical that we continue to review and assess the effectiveness of policy, but also that we recognise the need of policy to provide certainty for farm businesses and that policy recognises the timeframes for water quality measures to deliver improvements in water and ecological quality.

Young farmers are motivated to implement measures related to the improvement of water quality. Given its age profile, this is the generation that can provide a legacy to the behavioural change that is being asked of farmers in terms of changing farming practices to consider water quality and its improvement and protection. However, the investment of young farmers, and all farmers collectively, in water quality improvement and protection needs to be fully acknowledged for the ecosystem service it provides. All of society needs to appreciate and value the ecosystem service component of farming with respect to water quality. To truly acknowledge the added value of farmers’ actions in their farm business, the costs of their actions, which benefit all of society, should be shared with consumers. This would provide a positive outcome for farm incomes and livelihoods, present opportunities for farm diversification, support generational renewal, and ensure water quality and the sustainability of our environment. Young farmers seek an enabling policy framework to ensure not only sustainable water quality, but also a viable agricultural sector for generations to come. To achieve this, it needs to be recognised that water quality goes beyond the sole farm environment and includes neighbouring businesses, industries, communities and local authorities. It must be recognised that for young farmers, improving water quality in line with the EU nitrates directive requires capital investment in areas like slurry storage. This compounds the issues faced by young farmers in accessing finance. While public schemes such as the CAP offer options for support, there can often be critical time lags and such supports commonly remain insufficient to cover investment costs against rising inflation and start-up costs of farm businesses.

There needs to be greater communication and clarity for farmers on the targets of the nitrates directive, and what it aims to achieve. This is not a stand-alone document and the fundamental connections between EU policies on various aspects of water-related issues need greater communication to the farming community. There is also a need for greater communication on how water management policies cross links with nature protection and conservation and the implications at farm scale, especially in terms of nitrates derogation. The role of the nitrates directive, in particular, in supporting the delivery of the water framework directive, which provides an overarching framework for water management, merits greater attention and communication. The complexity and detail of the policy framework highlights the complexity of the issues facing water management and reminds us that farmers are not the sole actors contributing to its impairment. There are other actors and sources of pollution that need equal scrutiny if we are to achieve the targets of water management policy. There must be fairness in the distribution of responsibility for the delivery of water quality, with an understanding that farmers are playing their part and will continue to do so.

Good communication is key to achieving the aims of the nitrates directive. There needs to be improved communication on key water quality targets, so that people can clearly understand and put in place actions to support water quality management in both the short and long terms on their farms. There also needs to be greater coherence about water quality targets and their wording in the legislation, and for this to be communicated to farmers and society.

We can only effect change together. Greater emphasis on supporting awareness of good water quality practices is needed rather than greater emphasis on enforcement which neglects the importance of education and awareness in behavioural change for long-term and sustained water quality improvement and protection.

On the six questions that were given to us in advance of today's meeting, I will hand over to the chair of the Macra na Feirme agricultural affairs committee, Dr. Liam Hanrahan, and our senior policy officer, Dr. Maria Snell, who represent our organisation and members in the agri-water quality working group.

Senator Paul Daly

I thank the representatives of Macra na Feirme for attending. As I said in the previous session, I thank the committee for coming up with this initiative. This is the first meeting in a process where this committee will formulate a document with an argument, making as strong a case as possible through our meetings and investigations to try to ensure we maintain the derogation. It is vital. Everyone who is in any way involved in the sector and who will be in any way affected needs to sing from the same hymn sheet.

With that in mind, I will ask the same questions I asked the groups at the previous session, because we are trying to gather information and the opinions of all the different actors involved. I asked three questions. The witnesses received the six questions and they will come out in the course of our discussion. The implications for Ireland if we lose this are that it will not only affect farmers, or dairy farmers - many people think this is a dairy farmer issue - it has serious implications for all the other sectors. We went through those in the earlier session. We will not go over them again. The processing, Ireland Inc., the industry, the jobs and the amount of investment that has been put into stainless steel and so on will suffer if we do not have milk. It is important that everyone present is fighting the same battle and, as Deputy Fitzmaurice said earlier, that we are all pushing the car up the hill and no one is sitting on the bonnet. Perhaps we will get the car up the hill.

I would like the witnesses to comment on three areas. First, the narrative is often put out that the derogation gives us an unfair advantage over our European counterparts and, at the end of the day, those 26 countries will decide whether we get an extension or a new derogation in 2025. The witnesses have a lot of dealings with their cohorts, peers and affiliate groups in Europe. They might comment on how the Irish derogation is perceived by them and on what role we can play in influencing the political classes or the farm representative bodies in Europe that may, if that narrative is correct, put up barriers to us getting the derogation going forward for the reasons given. They might perceive it as Ireland getting an unfair advantage.

The second matter I raised with the other witnesses was anaerobic digestion and the role it might play. We are 20 years behind the curve on this. I would like to hear the witnesses' comments on that. We had a lot of discussion in the earlier session about targeted agriculture modernisation schemes, TAMS, and grants, the need for more slurry storage and for slurry to go out at the right time of year. Is there a role for anaerobic digestion? We know what stage we should be at. How can we expedite the conversation? If I could export slurry to another anaerobic digester in the morning, albeit with dry facilities needed, then I could take back my slurry in dry matter form, store it in a hay shed and use it when growth is at its maximum. Then I would get the maximum benefit from it. It is a no-brainer that it must be part of the solution, but how can we expedite the process where it may play a role? Perhaps I am outside things and it does not have a big role to play going forward.

The third matter I would like the witnesses to comment on is a programme they are probably familiar with. It is the wastewater quality project Tirlán initiated and led in the River Slaney catchment area in conjunction with the local authority waters programme, LAWPRO, Wexford, Carlow and Wicklow County Councils and Teagasc. I would like to hear the witnesses' comments on that initiative, that type of initiative and what role they see for processors and industry. As I said earlier, they have as much at stake and to lose in this. What role can they play? If this goes south, they will potentially be the biggest losers. There is a role for industry in a collaborative effort to try to be seen at least to make every effort to improve water quality. I welcome the initiative by Tírlán, but is there potential for more to be done on the industry side?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Will I leave it to Ms Hanrahan to dispense the questions?

Ms Elaine Houlihan

Yes, I ask Dr. Hanrahan to respond first.

Dr. Liam Hanrahan

The Senator's first question was around whether Ireland has an unfair advantage in the European context because of having the derogation.

Senator Paul Daly

Do our European colleagues see it that way? That is a narrative we are being given. We are often told it will not be easy to get this and that we are asking our 26 European colleagues to vote to give us an unfair advantage. What feedback are the witnesses getting in Europe and from Brussels?

Dr. Liam Hanrahan

The Conseil Européen des Jeunes Agriculteurs-European Council of Young Farmers, CEJA, is our European body. Our counterparts are the other young farmer member organisations that belong to CEJA. We have never had that feedback from them. Other members of that organisation are also looking for a derogation and have recently lost derogations. We already know that story. Their system is totally different and they are cognisant of the that. Anaerobic digestion also comes into it. In the European context of indoor systems, which many of these countries have, they have daily slurry and fresh slurry works much better for anaerobic digesters. We do not have that system here. We have slurry in the winter. It is said it can be stored, but the efficiency of the ammonia use is not as great. They have a significant advantage as regards investment in anaerobic digesters in Europe. They are a fantastic solution for generating electricity. We have a slight disadvantage there. They also have the tillage land to export the slurry to. Exporting slurry is a solution for those farmers, but it is not a solution in an Irish context in reality because the nutrients being exported are highly valuable. The situation the Senator described of exporting to anaerobic digesters and importing it back makes sense. We all realise the cost of fertilisers and in a grass-based system, the nutrient use efficiency is probably the most important part of the whole system.

Senator Paul Daly

Not if farmers are putting it out on 13 January because they have to.

Dr. Liam Hanrahan

Yes, I mean appropriate nutrient management as a whole. I will probably come to it in a minute. Slurry storage and the proper use of nutrients are the key to the whole system. If an anaerobic digester system was available, it would be used to the best of its capacity. That would be the intention. Europeans can certainly avail of anaerobic digestion to a greater extent than we can, due to the export capacity of the tillage land.

I will move on to the wastewater programme the Senator mentioned. Dr. Snell might comment in a moment. We consistently encourage greater supports for farmers around all of this from an advisory perspective because its implementation and uptake are the key. There is no point in five, ten or even 100 farmers doing it. Every farmer has to participate in this journey of improving water quality going forward. If all actors along the supply chain are involved, it will only be a positive story. We continuously advocate for more funding for the likes of the ASSAP that is in place through Teagasc. It is a fantastic programme and it needs to be rolled out to almost every farmer and not only be run in the catchments that have been identified as being vulnerable. An increase in implementation is the key. Science has proven that if we implement all the mitigation measures, water quality will improve from an agricultural perspective.

Dr. Maria Snell

To pick up on Ms Houlihan's points on questions 1 and 2, we view the derogation as a levelling of the playing field. While we can make comparisons with our colleagues in Europe, Ireland is unique in that it is an island. There are issues concerning scale. Really, it is about economy of scale.

We would very much welcome anaerobic digestion infrastructure in this country, but it comes back to scale and how it would be rolled out and managed. Notwithstanding that, there are solutions. It definitely could work and we definitely need to explore this.

Our colleagues in Europe have always been very supportive, even though the matter is not high on their agenda. They recognise our unique situation and production system and why derogation is required, namely because of the size of the country, the scale of operations and how we need the supports to have a viable business infrastructure. Also, our family-farm infrastructure is a factor. It is really important that we keep this context in mind, not just in respect of the derogation but also the wider environmental and economic impacts if the derogation were suddenly removed.

On the third question, I absolutely support all actors in the chain supporting the dissemination of knowledge. It is important that we hear many different perspectives along the food chain, not just the farming perspective. We really need a collaborative approach. We need to appreciate everybody's opinions and find a solution together. It is only by coming together that we can do that. Everybody has a role to play in an advisory capacity. We need diversity of knowledge because this is not a simple issue. It is very complex and there are many factors at play. It is really important, therefore, that the advisory service or network available to farmers be diverse in its thinking and supports so it can meet their requirements. We all want to deliver on water quality but there are many different elements in achieving that. There are physical, chemical and biological factors in addition to the overarching framework, including weather patterns. Certainly, everybody must come together. It is important that we bring it back to the local and community levels. Community, as well as industry, has a role to play. Within this, the processes and the farmer come into play.

Dr. Liam Hanrahan

I have a couple of additional points, the first relating to market availability. By comparison with our European counterparts, it is obvious that we have an export market and they have large internal markets. The majority of the countries have large internal markets. There is a significant difference in size. In general, our supply is a good bit smaller than that of many European countries.

To add to the third point, on the uptake of advisory services, farmers will take on the science and data. Maybe ten or 15 years ago, grass measuring was left to the early adopters, whereas it is now a widespread practice. I am sure that, with the onset of more decision-support tools to utilise the data generated at farm level, practices will change. There will be a positive outcome but there has to be a serious amount of collaboration along the way. We obviously have to have production potential to implement the change.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I welcome the presentation, which gave a unique angle on where we are going in this really significant debate on the nitrates derogation. Could I get down to the meat and bones of the issue and the empowerment of farmers with information? This is probably the key issue. I am referring in particular to getting out information on water testing. Is there a deficit of knowledge about EPA testing in the farming community regarding what is happening in our rivers? When the EPA tests a body of water, it can take months, if not years, for the information to be made public. How do we empower the farming community with the information? Dairy farmers get the results of milk tests within 48 hours of the bulk tank leaving, whereas one might get the result of an EPA test of a water body 18 months later. What initiatives concerning the EPA should there be to empower farmers with information? How can the EPA work within the catchments to give farmers the information required to take action on foot of a bad water test result, such that the quality of the entire water body could be improved within 12 months?

On anaerobic digestion, a very valuable point was made about size and capacity. What is happening in Ireland is unique by comparison with what is happening on the Continent. Should co-operative societies be a major driver of anaerobic digestion? Where should the co-operative movement play a role? It is a big driver in our economy in so many ways and has a conglomerate of farmers already tied to it. Should Macra na Feirme examine whether a reconfigured co-operative society movement could take on anaerobic digestion as one of its main projects?

We have discussed TAMS and planning. Where are we going to go in the next 12 or 13 months to see real changes in practice that could see real changes in water quality, but under a new derogation if it comes in? What does Macra na Feirme want from the Government between now and October? What needs to happen on the ground so we can empower farmers again to help them make the changes, including in respect of long-term plans, waiting for TAMS grants of 70% and everything else? We are probably a little bit off in that we will not have it done in the next seven or eight months. I do not know whether you would have storage by next October if you were to start today. What can we do in this short space of time? What needs to be done, considering that time is ticking regarding this significant issue? The rural economy could be affected. People say dairy farms are the big entities in that there are jobs in transport and processing. The milk pool decreased last year by 3%. The knock-on implication for the rural economy, whether in west Cork or Tipperary, is considerable. Could we have an idea of how the younger generation of farmers, in particular, will be affected and how the confidence level of a younger farmer investing will be affected? The younger farmers are really important drivers. If they are not involved in the system, the entire system will deteriorate.

Dr. Maria Snell

I will start with the first question, on the data. There are a few different parts to the chain. Data collected by the EPA give us certain information on the status of the river. There are a few steps to come back from that, one being that farmers, especially young farmers, are very keen to have a data-driven approach. We now live in a world in which data is driving every part of our society. There is a hunger for informed management practices. While we can get a water quality test or soil test done, it is a question of interpretation and the meaning of the numbers. It is then about implementation. There are a few steps concerning how data can help us.

As already mentioned, one of the key things is to have the advisory capacity and diversity of knowledge within the system. At the moment, it is at capacity. There is a heavy administrative burden on it and this is acting as a significant barrier in getting critical advice onto the ground. We have to be able to access the data, understand it and make it meaningful so practices can be changed.

We have to understand why it will benefit the business. Ultimately, we are trying to run businesses and be profitable while also delivering for the environment. We need to be cognisant of that.

Generational renewal policy is put out on its own but we need to think of policy in a more coherent structure. The environment is really important but we also need the younger generation to come through. If we do not have people to farm and look after the land, that will create problems of its own. As we move forward, we need more coherence in agri-environment policy. We need to look at this in terms of water quality accounting systems. We have different systems for carbon and other areas of the environment and we need to break this down for water so that farmers can understand.

Ultimately, it comes back to a collaborative approach of adoption and that is why it is so important that everybody plays their role. There is a certain economy of scale here. We need a certain amount of buy-in of a large enough area before we can effect change. That is the nature of catchments. Of course, it is not only farmers who are living and working in catchments who need to get involved; we need all of society to buy into this and to move forward. We have to follow the data.

That brings me on to the Leas-Chathaoirleach's next point around what can we ask. Time is the critical elephant in the room here. When we put in these measures, it takes time for them to go through. It takes time to put in slurry storage, for example. There are significant barriers. For young farmers, planning permission and access to finance are parts of the process as we are starting up and our businesses are in their infancy. We feel like there should be prioritisation for young farmers in order for us to have the kind of capital we need to invest. If we can effect change in our generation, that will carry through for 30 or 40 years and thereby bring legacy and permanence to this area. However, those who are starting to bring through this behavioural change in our cohort do not necessarily have the capital that other more established businesses would have. It is really about bringing everybody together.

I suppose the same is true for AD. We need to look at all the different ways we can come together to have this. It is definitely part of the solution, but we need to be innovative in our thinking about how we find a solution for Ireland. We can look to our counterparts across Europe to see how they have had trade-offs. Ultimately, we need to find a workable solution. We need to bear in mind that rising costs are a significant barrier for young farmers. We can have AD but we need to think about the cost of moving slurry to a plant and back again, how we do that and what infrastructure we need to safely store nutrients on the farm. We have to think about what assistance in this regard might look like. I will hand over to Dr. Hanrahan at this point.

Dr. Liam Hanrahan

I will pick up on the point about the AD plants and the co-operative movement. It would probably have to fall to groups of farmers, perhaps in a co-operative, to get such an investment off the ground given the large-scale of investment that is required, the timeframe possibly involved in licensing such a project to get it going - from what we hear, it is a substantial length of time and the investment is absolutely huge - and the use afterwards of both the electricity and the digestate. A small number of farmers might not be capable of taking away the digestate on a daily basis. I am sure a collaborative approach certainly would be preferable.

The Leas-Chathaoirleach alluded to many of the measures associated with bringing about real changes in water quality. Slurry storage, which is one of the key measures, needs to be fast-tracked and prioritised through the young farmer investment scheme or even through planning permission applications. Slurry storage applications need to be looked on preferably to get it off the ground, particularly in light of potential new research that would suggest we need even more slurry storage. If that proves to be the case, further slurry storage requirements would have to be grant-aided as opposed to a farmer becoming non-compliant overnight. That would obviously be an issue in terms of applying for TAMS, and it would be a real problem then.

I would like to mention some other measures in this context. The ASSAP and signpost programmes need to be fast-tracked or advanced. Further investment in advisers is needed to allow them to be able to get on the ground to help farmers, essentially. The workload involved in the advisory sector at the moment is massive with the administrative burdens. For investment to happen on farms, farmers ideally need an investment guarantee - a return on their investment going forward and guarantees around stocking rates. When a farmer invests anything between €50,000 and €100,000 to get a reasonable amount of slurry storage, it is obviously is a total waste of money if that investment is not being used after three years. A guarantee around stocking rates would be the ultimate incentive to invest.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I now call on the Chairman of the committee, Deputy Cahill.

Deputy Jackie Cahill

I thank Senator Lombard for taking the Chair. We had a fairly long session of voting there.

I am lucky enough in that I have the next generation starting on the farm with me. Macra na Feirme is the organisation representing young farmers. What effect is it having on the morale of its members that the 250 kg N/ha to 220 kg N/ha reduction within the industry is forcing contraction on a number of farms, and with the danger of further reductions in the organic limit? Do they see that having an impact on those who are deciding whether to stay at home farming, and even on those young men and women who are farming? Is it having an impact on their morale? Is it having an impact on them making career decisions? I am not talking about the investment now. I am talking about their mental attitude to farming and whether they will pursue it as a career. We talk here about generational renewal and the impact it is having. Is the whole uncertainty about nitrates, with some farmers being forced to reduce stocking numbers - Dr. Hanrahan mentioned the uncertainty around stocking numbers - having a serious impact on morale? Will it further worsen our generational renewal?

Ms Elaine Houlihan

The answer is "Yes"; it is causing issues around morale. I suppose it is disheartening to see that many people cannot see a future in our sector of agriculture. Everybody wants a future. We want a future in our sector. The committee saw that last April when we literally walked to Government Buildings to highlight it. The Deputy is right to use the word "uncertainty" because there is constant uncertainty in this sector. If you ask those in their mid-20s what they want to do after they finish agricultural college, they are nearly wondering whether to do a masters or get on a flight to Australia or Canada. It is hard to see a future in the sector, especially with the derogation. It is hard to get land due to increased costs, etc. It is a lot to burden somebody with at a young age. It is causing morale issues for our generation, but also for parents. They know they do not want to put that debt hanging over their child. They have been through that. They can see now that the future might not be there for their son or daughter to take on the farm. I am sure that is not an easy decision for any parent. I will ask Dr. Hanrahan to come in on this point if he has anything to add, but the overall morale is low.

Dr. Liam Hanrahan

I thank the Deputy. The Leas-Chathaoirleach touched on the viability of the rural economy. As Ms Houlihan has said, it affects morale. It is not unreasonable for it to do so. If one thinks about it pragmatically, we have a number of members who would come to us to tell us about their situations. They might have 100 or 120 cows, and an integrated beef system where they are carrying their calves to beef, or a replacement heifer-rearing system alongside the dairy herd.

If they are in the most efficient banding bracket as we will call it, they have a significant nitrates issue now at the moment when farming very efficiently. Nitrate use efficiency is quite high, they are pushing the boundaries in terms of grassland management and getting their slurry out and they are faced with a reversal in efficiency of their production system or production in their production system, which undoubtedly will impact on the viability. In the case of one generation, it might be possible to carry on but in a two generation situation it becomes far more complex, as I am sure members are aware. Then it poses a question as to which generation finds an off-farm income. In the majority of these cases, the investments already have been incurred, the fixed costs already have been incurred. The costs are there, as is the production potential; it just needs to be allowed to happen to get the return from the investment.

For a young person starting out, even in an extremely good farming situation, he or she does not know what is going to happen in five or ten years' time. In a situation where such people are trying to build up the farm and obviously trying to make an investment, they do not know where their limit is. It is going to create even further pressures in terms of access to finance. If you are trying to create a finance plan for the bank, the first thing you need to know is how much you can produce.

The impact this will have on generation renewal cannot be overstated. We can say how much of an impact it would have on a farm right now at this minute but the potential losses down the line and for years to come, as well as the knock-on effects of that, are unquantifiable. In a situation where there is a proportion of rented land, clearly the costs of such land have gone up or the rented land could potentially be lost. It creates a lot of uncertainty and that is an issue for young people getting into a career. As we know, young people want to make a career in agriculture but you cannot make a career out of something and invest your life into it if you do not know where it is going.

Deputy Claire Kerrane

My question was going to be more on the social aspect, as the Cathaoirleach has outlined, more than on the economic, as that has been discussed quite a lot here this evening and by the witnesses. I think that is well understood but for the purposes of the report, we intend to do the social and the generational and the renewal parts, as those are just as important to highlight.

It relates to the huge uncertainty that is there. Why would you spend thousands investing when you do not know how long the derogation is going to stay at its current level or whether it will come down the next time or the time after that? Elections are coming up and as we are going to have a new environmental Commissioner and a new one in agriculture as well, that uncertainty is hugely unhelpful. When you are in a model of farming like that of the derogation farmers and when you are depending - when the derogation is looked at every few years - on it to remain as is, do the witnesses have a view on how that model could be changed and looked at on a longer-term basis, particularly if water quality is seen to improve the next time? I imagine it will, insofar as the measures farmers had carried out the last time with the interim review did not have time to bed in and therefore the consequences of it were not seen in the first place. Having said that, from everything we have heard this evening it appears that while farmers can do every action going, what they contribute in respect of water quality is so small that even if they do every measure, we need a much wider response to this because it is not just the farmers. We need to put that point across at European level because reducing the derogation consistently is not going to improve water quality on its own, definitely not to where it needs to be. Do the witnesses have a view on that model changing to look at a longer-term option rather than this dependence on derogation every few years, which is no way to run a business a farm at all?

Ms Elaine Houlihan

I am going to pass the Deputy over to Dr. Hanrahan.

Dr. Liam Hanrahan

I thank the Deputy. The social impacts undoubtedly will be massive. We cannot underestimate the potential knock-on impacts on the next generation. Farmers like ourselves are already involved. We are in farming and it makes it quite difficult to make a plan for the future but if you were starting out or planning to start out in five years' time, it makes it a lot worse. You have other career options that might be more attractive or offer more certainty. If you go into a job in pharmaceuticals, you are almost guaranteed progression in terms of salary or management if those are your goals. When involved as a young farmer, however, you are not necessarily guaranteed to have an increased income year on year. There are no incremental increases guaranteed as it is all down to the work you do yourself. If you are making improvements and investments in your farm year on year and suddenly you are being put backwards due to factors beyond your control, it makes it ten times worse. Everyone can understand when you are running your own business you are taking on the risk of doing so. That is part of it but factors that you cannot control are impacting your business, as the Deputy alluded to, and are changing the goalposts. On changing the derogation limits, for example, due to water quality, there is no guarantee of improving the water quality by bringing down the derogation limits. It is an extremely crude way of guaranteeing a reduction at farm level. In terms of farm viability, productivity, profit potential, potential for generation renewal or potential for employing labour or making investments, we need to be able to invest to make improvements and implement measures such as equipment for less slurry. That costs money. The majority of the measures cost money but can deliver farmers extra profit if allowed to produce extra food. The extra production that comes from the efficiency of the uses of the new technologies is what delivers for the farmers. If it is not possible to produce extra food, there is no incentive to implement the technologies that are available now and will become available into the future. The Deputy alluded to it herself in terms of a long-term plan.

We would like to see a ten-year year plan on the actions that are going to happen here. Are there other measures that can be taken or are there other impact factors that can be considered, as opposed to just organic nitrogen in the case of certain measures not being met? It does feel as though consistently more stringent factors are being implemented, no matter what. As for whether we will meet stable water quality status, there is the potential for improvement. It is scientifically proven that water quality will improve based on mitigating factors and the measures farmers have implemented already and are continuing to implement from an agricultural perspective. From an agricultural perspective, we know we are improving but it is the uncontrollables, which include climate and weather that we cannot predict. Is there anything Dr. Snell would like to add to that?

Dr. Maria Snell

Time is the critical component when we are working with the environment to try to effect change and not only get the improvement but protect it. That is important to recognise. Also in terms of the farm business, time is critical and we need to be able to invest to see a future. Certain management practices are not practical to implement on a yearly basis in respect of the time or effort required and nor are they beneficial to the environment or water quality and we need to recognise that. Once we begin to implement these measures, the recovery of the system takes time. It takes time to see the stabilisation and improvement. When we get to that, it is about the protection of that improvement.

There are complex issues around each of those steps and how we deliver on that but we absolutely need to move beyond confining ourselves to political cycles of four years. While I understand why that is in place, we need a longer-term vision on this if we are serious about delivering change. I certainly understand that ten years is a long time and there should of course be checks within that, such as interim reviews or ways of measuring the trajectory to ensure we are going in the right direction. We must believe in and follow the signs and commit to that over the long term, as it takes time for the environment to recover and change. We know that and the science is there, too.

All parts of this must be balanced. There are the social and environmental aspects and then there is how that land and infrastructure in Ireland is managed. We work with a grass-based system; it is a system where animals are outdoors and one that has been in place for many generations. We wish to see that carried forward. Farmers have always worked with the environment and care very much about it. The key message is that we need time but also communication and understanding. That is why, as my colleague Dr. Hanrahan mentioned, we want and need more advisory capacity. Sometimes, it is just what we see but we cannot see our own blind spots. We wish to get more people on the ground in order that qualified professionals will be able to go out and look at what the issues are on the farm.

Enforcement has been brought up a lot. Rather than go straight to that, it is important that people have the opportunity to learn. This must be a behavioural change. If we want this to be a permanent change and not just something that we try to deliver on a derogation, it must be more than enforcement. We must be able to bring people on a journey and there must be learning from all actors in this. We must work together and know what the common goal is. What good water quality is and what that looks like for everybody in society needs to be communicated. Then, what is needed to do that? What are the practices that can be done on farms? In my experience, farmers are happy to do that. Sometimes, they are just not aware.

Farming has changed and there has been a step change now. We recognise that farming is not just about production but about the service as well. I think we have yet to catch up on how we reward farmers on this element, and how we build that into the farm business as a valuable commodity that society values. Imagine what it would be like without having good water quality or without having the production we have. We must move forward together and be visionary in what we wish to achieve. Ultimately, we all want the same thing and it is just around finding that balance. Communication and awareness are critical at every step so that we can get all the actors together and move forward and have that long-term vision.

Dr. Liam Hanrahan

To further that point, I refer back again to the organic nitrogen limits. While the proportionality of the reduction in the organic nitrogen limits to the total nitrogen load is quite small, the proportionality of it from a viability perspective is massive. A 30% reduction in production when the fixed costs are already incurred is a massive reduction in profitability. We know that market volatility in certain years can put farmers under, particularly in the case of rented land in the system. The potential for upsets to the land market or the marketplace in general cannot be underestimated, be that the land market, the price of milk based on unused processing capacity or the integrated beef systems on farms. The majority of our members who are in efficient farming systems have a beef system or other systems that are integrated with their dairy herds. It is the other farming enterprise that will go first. Therefore, systems that we promote, such as integrated beef systems and finishing their own cattle, will be affected in a major way.

There was a major reduction in the value of dairy stock last year; in-calf heifers halved in value. In a lot of farms that sell surplus dairy stock or dairy in-calf heifers, a halving of the value of those animals had a major impact on their overall farm profitability for the year. It suddenly went from a profitable enterprise to a serious loss-making enterprise within the overall farm system.

As for access to finance and uncertainty with banks, even if a farmer is in a higher repayment farming system after investing in his or her farm, it puts a lot of pressure on if a loan was taken out under different pretences, which could have been easily done.

The negative changes to the system also need to be avoided. Dr. Snell has alluded to our grass-based system a number of times. Potentially, there could be farmers who wish to go to a higher input system. This is not as environmentally or economically friendly, in reality. We need to be able to utilise grass to the best use possible. If farmers did not have enough slurry storage, or enough money to invest in slurry storage or housing and end up without wintering systems in place, these obviously would not be ideal from a water quality perspective.

It comes back to what Dr. Snell stated on what good water quality is. We must target to get to a place where farmers are part of the testing and monitoring system or programme, where tools and technologies are available at farm level that can be tested. A lot of this would also be to your own benefit in terms of testing how well your nutrient management programme is working, that is, your nutrient use efficiency. We all know what the cost of importing fertiliser is. We must get the best use out of the nutrients we have. If they are being lost, that is obviously an inefficiency in the system. As for anything that can be done around testing, if X, Y or Z is not working, can that be changed to make another farming practice? We have to have a mentality around finding the best way of being part of that.

I thank the Chair.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I thank the witnesses.

Deputy Claire Kerrane

I thank the witnesses.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I thank Macra na Feirme for its comprehensive response to what is an important issue for the agriculture industry.

We will now move ahead to the next item on the agenda. Our next public meeting will be on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 at 5.30 p.m., when the committee will examine the nitrates derogation and its implications for Ireland.

The joint committee adjourned at 9:08 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 21 February 2024.