Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine díospóireacht

Compliance with the Nitrates Directive and Implications for Ireland: Discussion (Resumed)

An Cathaoirleach

Apologies have been received from Senator Boylan.

I remind members and witnesses to turn off their mobile phones.

I bring to the witnesses' attention that witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that a witness has a full defence against any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and 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 are to give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to publication by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to the utterances of Members participating online in committee meetings from 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 the member having his or her online access removed.

The purpose of today's meeting is a resumed examination of compliance with the nitrates directive and the implications for Ireland. The committee will hear from the following representatives: from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Mr. Bill Callanan, chief inspector, Mr. Ted Massey, senior inspector, nitrates division, and Dr. Leanne Roche, agriculture inspector, nitrates division; and, from Teagasc, Professor Frank O'Mara, director, Professor Pat Dillon, head of research, and Dr. Stan Lalor, director of knowledge transfer and national advisory programmes. You are all very welcome to the meeting. Their opening statements have been circulated to members. I will now allow them time to read their opening statements, starting with the Department and then Teagasc. Then we will proceed to a question and answer session. As they are probably aware, this is one of a series of meetings we are having on nitrates. We have had the decision on 1 January to reduce to 220 kg N/ha, which has serious implications. Farmers and the whole dairy industry are extremely worried about the review coming up at the back end of 2025, which is only a year and a half away. It is bringing huge uncertainty to people's planning for the future. Also, the economic consequences of dropping to 170 kg N/ha would be dire for the whole industry. As a committee, therefore, we made a decision to bring in all stakeholders. We have had environmental groups etc. in here in recent weeks. We are bringing in all stakeholders to try to put all the facts together and to try to see how this country can make a credible, practical case for at least the retention of the present 220 kg N/ha.

I now ask Mr. Callanan to make his opening statement.

Mr. Bill Callanan

I thank the committee for devoting its time to this important topic. I am joined by my colleagues, Ted Massey, senior inspector, and Dr. Leanne Roche, agriculture inspector, who are both based in the Department's water and air quality division.

I wish to provide some background information.

The nitrates directive has the objectives of reducing and preventing water pollution caused by agriculture. It sets an application limit of 170 kg N/ha of livestock manure. It does not set a limit on stock numbers on the holding but rather limits the quantity of manure that can be applied to land. The directive states, however, that a different quantity may be permitted provided it will not prejudice achievement of the directive’s objectives and is justified based on objective criteria. Those criteria may include a long growing season; the predominance of crops with high nitrogen requirement, namely, grass; a high net precipitation; or soils with exceptionally high denitrification capacity.

Ireland’s grass-based system, coupled with a relatively long growing season and high net precipitation, have been the basis for Ireland’s derogation application. However, granting a derogation is dependent on a positive vote by member states and the Commission must be assured it can justify granting a derogation before it will present its implementing decision for a vote by them. It is clear there is increased scrutiny when granting a derogation, especially as we approach the 2027 water framework directive deadline for achieving at least good status. Most, if not all, member states will not achieve that target, and there has been limited overall progress on improving water quality over the past ten years at EU level. This has led to the Commission’s current position that to be granted another derogation, water quality must be at least stable in areas that are already achieving good or high status and must be improving in areas that are at moderate, poor or bad status. We must all work together to achieve this.

I will give an overview of the Department’s response to the committee’s questions. More detailed written responses have been provided. As regards questions Nos. 1 and 2, derogation farmers represent a small but economically important minority of Irish farmers. In 2022, 6,700 farmers sought a nitrates derogation. A further reduction in Ireland’s maximum derogation stocking rate below 220 kg N/ha will impact on significantly more farmers than were impacted by the reduction to 200 kg N/Ha, based on Commission criteria. The extent of those impacts, both socially and economically, will depend on how farmers react to and mitigate such a scenario, but one likely outcome is increased competition for land.

On the questions as to whether it is possible to maintain Ireland’s nitrates derogation at its current level while improving water quality and whether the nitrates action programme, NAP, is fit for purpose, the answer to both is "Yes". It will, however, require all stakeholders to work together to deliver on improving water quality nationally. Factors that influence nutrient loss to water, be it nitrogen or phosphorous, include weather, soil type, topography and the overall nutrient load. How that load is managed, however, is extremely important in reducing losses to the environment. This makes water quality an issue for every farmer. Everyone in the agrifood industry has a role to play in ensuring the load is managed such that loses will be minimised. Ireland’s current NAP is our strongest yet, but there is potential to improve things further, as proposed under the current interim review, through increased awareness-raising and advice on water quality as well as increased compliance and enforcement activity. There is also a requirement for all stakeholders to play their part in implementing the action program, with the advisory service and industry having key roles along with additional targeted measures where necessary to protect and improve water quality.

The advisory service also has a key role to play on the issue of supports. The Government, however, has invested in supporting farmers through continued support, with industry, for the agricultural sustainability support and advisory programme, ASSAP, in which 48 advisers are available to farmers; €60 million investment in a water quality project, the water European Innovation Partnership, EIP, which will launch shortly; accelerated capital allowances for farmers investing in slurry storage; and the multispecies sward and red clover silage measures, the soil sampling and analysis programme and the national liming programme, all of which will help farmers reduce their reliance on chemical nitrogen. In addition, approval was recently secured from the Commission for a separate investment ceiling for farmers investing in additional organic manure storage facilities on farm, beyond regulatory compliance, and 70% grant aid for manure storage facilities on farms importing livestock manure under a contract.

On the issue of enforcement, we have seen a significant increase in the Department’s activity since 2022, with a doubling of inspection numbers for derogation farmers. Furthermore, last year, the Department also conducted more than 500 nitrates inspections on behalf of the local authorities. The Department is also involved in the EPA’s national agricultural inspection programme working group, which is seeking to harmonise inspections between the Department and the local authorities and move those inspections to a risk-based approach.

I will be happy to take any questions, along with my colleagues.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Callanan. I invite Professor O'Mara to make his opening statement.

Professor Frank O'Mara

Teagasc welcomes this opportunity to address the joint committee. We have confined our opening statement to addressing the six questions posed in the invitation. In the interests of time, I will not read out the six questions but instead refer to them by number.

On question No. 1, we published a report on the impact of nitrogen management strategies within grass-based dairy systems in February of last year. This report indicated that, without mitigation, farm profitability would be reduced by up to 29%, or €700 per hectare, on the most severely affected farms, those in band three, due to the combined effects of the introduction of banding and reducing organic nitrogen from 250 kg N/ha to 220 kg N/ha. This report did not analyse the impact of reducing stocking rates below 220 kg N/ha, but it is clear further reductions in maximum stocking rates would further significantly reduce farm profitability. More than 2,000 farmers were affected by the cut to 220 kg N/ha, but further reductions would affect even more farmers and the impact would progressively increase as the level of stocking rate cut increased. New mitigation measures recently introduced, relating to calf nitrogen excretion and crude protein, were not considered in that report.

On question No. 2, apart from the impact on farm profitability, further cutting the maximum stocking rate would most likely reduce national milk production and increase average milk processing costs in the processing sector. These farm level and processor effects would impact negatively on the competitiveness of the dairy sector and on rural communities. They could also be an additional barrier to new entry into dairying and add to the challenge of generational renewal already faced. This has the potential to further increase the competition for land, which has been cited as a concern among farmers.

On question No. 3, the answer is "Yes". While acknowledging there are waters in the country that must be improved, the overall water quality in Ireland is relatively good compared with that in other EU countries. More than half, or 54%, of surface water bodies have satisfactory, meaning good or high, ecological status. Challenges include allowing sufficient time for new measures to show improvements in water quality, and a total of 39 individual measures were transposed into the nitrates action plan statutory instruments in the four years since 2020; and having sufficient slurry storage on farms such that farmers can maximise its nutrient use efficiency and reduce its impact on water quality. Some of the main criteria for Ireland receiving a derogation were our long growing season, our high percentage of grassland and the high potential for nitrogen uptake annually. Despite some evolution of farming systems in Ireland over the past two decades, the core success of these production systems is still their capacity to utilise high levels of grass produced over a long growing season for grazing animals and, therefore, the fundamental basis underpinning Ireland’s justification for a derogation remains in place.

On question No. 4, up to now the nitrates action programme has depended very much on the enforcement of measures and regulations that led to a reduction in chemical nitrogen application rates, changes to slurry management and soiled water storage, higher livestock nitrogen excretion rates plus banding, and an extended closed period for chemical fertiliser. There now needs to be a greater focus on engagement with all farmers and key stakeholders at catchment level to raise awareness and apply targeted measures to reduce nutrient losses to water. Targeted measures are needed because Ireland’s landscape is heterogeneous in terms of factors controlling nitrogen and phosphorous transfer pathways, and weather, soil type and hydromorphology have a big impact on nutrient loss to water.

On question No. 5, some key supports that would assist farmers in improving compliance include increased information and training for farmers, including accessible information on the status of water in their area and appropriate mitigating actions, and increased professional support to identify issues on farms and design solutions, such as the ASSAP.

Teagasc is also working on proposals through which increased advisory support can be targeted towards farmers as part of a wider water quality campaign. The new water EIP project will support correction of issues identified on some farms. Teagasc is carrying out a survey on slurry storage capacity on livestock farms. There is an indication that slurry production is higher than current slurry storage requirements stipulate. Financial supports such as access to TAMS grants, low-cost credit and continuation of accelerated capital allowances will be critical to rectifying this problem. On stability in regulation, at present the fear of additional cuts in maximum stocking rate limits is a significant obstacle to investment in farms to prevent nutrient losses to water.

On question No. 6, Teagasc does not have a role in enforcement but the role of independent and consistent advice to farmers is key to farmers' awareness of measures and regulations, and to the adoption of practices to implement the right measure in the right place. I am happy to take questions.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the witnesses for their opening statements. They represent two key stakeholders in the debate on the review of nitrates. The work the Department and Teagasc will do between now and the middle of 2025 will be a key factor in whether or not we retain our 220 kg N/ha derogation. I have a few questions but will go to Senator Lombard first. I might come in later.

Senator Tim Lombard

I welcome the witnesses. It is great to have them here. There is a derogation of 250 kg N/ha in a proportion of Ireland, which is significant in those areas. Could I have a view on what direction will that derogation go in the next eight or nine months, the potential for it to be lost and how important it is to have such a derogation on part of the island? What work will be done? What is the proposal from now until the end of the derogation cycle to make sure 250 kg N/ha can be part of our landscape when it comes to derogation?

Mr. Bill Callanan

Senator Tim Lombard took the Chair.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Other stakeholders will have mentioned the view that all farmers need to be part of the solution. We have 130,000 farmers in the State; roughly 13,000 are incorporated in the derogation through the export of slurry or directly. I think this is the fourth presentation that has used this terminology.

The witnesses might give their views on how there could be an all-of-farming approach to make sure we have the potential to reach our derogation targets in terms of information and training, in particular when it comes to the farming community. Given what the Department and Teagasc are proposing, what needs to happen to have an all-farmer approach to this issue?

Mr. Bill Callanan

We have always identified water quality as an issue for all farmers, although different sectors have contributed. I have used a figure in front of the joint committee previously, which is that 30% of the load in certain catchments is from tillage. Similarly, even with livestock, the impact on water is a factor of load and how it reaches the water management. All of those things have an impact and just because somebody is, for example, beneath the nitrates threshold, if there is bad practice, it can be very detrimental to the water, whether that is due to slurry management, poor practice, access to water or otherwise. We have never differentiated in the need for all farmers to contribute.

Teagasc might be best able to articulate this point. What we have said is that derogation farmers are the most engaged in the responsibility for advisory and training. We have additional asks of those farmers and, for example, the nutrient management plans are checked, there is a higher inspection rate and there are requirements in terms of training that derogation farmers must comply with. We have additional asks and I believe that is proportionate and fair. For example, even the introduction of trailing shoe technology came in for that cohort of farmers first.

With regard to getting the message out, it would be wrong to suggest that if we remove the derogation, we will solve water quality issues. We have been consistent in that regard. Every farmer has to contribute and, as I said, if there is poor practice, it can be detrimental. With regard to an EIP being launched or funding for ASSAP, that is not focused on derogation farmers alone. It is available to all farmers as a support mechanism based on water quality in the area, so we are working at it from a water quality point of view as opposed to the top-down picking of a cohort of farmers.

Professor Frank O'Mara

Water quality is an issue for the whole industry, not just the dairy industry, dairy farmers in derogation or other livestock farmers in derogation. All of our agrifood industry trades on the good environmental performance of the sector, so it cuts across all commodities. As Mr. Callanan outlined, there can be impacts on water quality regardless of what farming system or what level of intensity is involved. ASSAP is the main programme that we have had addressing water quality at farm level in recent years. It targets priority areas of action within which there are dairy, dry stock and tillage farmers, and they are all part of the visiting regime of ASSAP engagement. We are looking to see how we can engage with all of the stakeholders and clients of Teagasc and, indeed, non-clients of Teagasc in a more thorough or systematic way. We are developing plans for what we are going to do this year. I will ask Dr. Lalor to outline what is planned in that regard.

Dr. Stan Lalor

I agree with all of those comments. When we look at the challenges to water quality, the two big asks are that the high and good status waters are maintained in that status and that the moderate, poor and bad are improved. That is a challenge. If we look at any river, whatever the status, the collective effort of all farmers has to come together, irrespective of their enterprise or intensity. It is the output of all farmers that is important. When we look at trying to develop further the engagement at farm level, there are a couple of key areas that we are seeking to develop. One is the connection of the various individual farmers with whatever data is available locally. We are very fortunate to have resources such as catchments.ie through the EPA monitoring network and fortunate to have that database of information that farmers can connect to. The accessibility in terms of its usability and how we can connect farmers to their own local data is an area where there is a lot of opportunity to develop. We are very keen to work on that.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Has Teagasc done research on areas that the EPA has been working on to check out the validity? On these models, I am sick of models. All my life, I have been hearing about a model, how we will do something only then, maybe five or ten years later, to find that that model was not an accurate model to be working on.

At the end of the day, it is farmers who are at risk in all of this. Teagasc was involved in a programme near where Senator Lombard is from and produced good results. Has it looked at the phosphorous side to see whether it is accurate? Has Teagasc done research?

Professor Frank O'Mara

We have done a lot of research on water quality over the years. The particular programme the Deputy referred to with Senator Lombard-----

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

In Timoleague.

Professor Frank O'Mara

-----is the catchments programme, which involves six catchments that are intensively monitored to look at the effects of agriculture on water quality in those catchments. There is one in Timoleague. Some are in heavily farmed areas in Wexford and Louth and there are some on heavier land, such as one in Ballinrobe, County Mayo. We have information on a variety of soil types and key finding from the catchments. The EPA runs the national monitoring programme. We are not trying to duplicate that but are trying to understand what is happening within farms that has an impact on water quality. It has showed that soil type, weather and farming practice - that is the type of farming, whether it is tillage or livestock and the intensity of livestock - have a huge effect on water quality. It is not as simple as saying the higher the stocking rate, the greater the impact on water quality. Land type and how the land is being farmed have to be taken into account.

Perhaps Dr. Dillon would like to add something to that.

Dr. Pat Dillon

In general, nitrogen is a problem in free-draining soils and phosphorous is a problem in heavy soils, where there is run-off. There can be phosphorous run-off from heavy soils, even with a very low stocking rate. Nitrogen goes down through the ground and into the waterways.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I will go back to Mr. Callanan. Am I correct that a proposal was made in the last week - I think it was based on Teagasc figures - that the figure for bullocks over a year-old should change to 61 kg/N per year. The beef sector would have an 8.5% decrease. For example, someone who is tight on nitrates will have an 8.5% change in his or her stocking rate if that figure comes in. Is that fair?

Mr. Bill Callanan

There was a request for updated information on excretion factors through the water quality stakeholder group - everyone is involved in that - and we asked Teagasc to do it. That came out on the dairy side as well, with respect to banding, for example. It was simply about updating the information. We have regularly tried to update those tables since 2006 using the best available science. The best available science identified that the excretion factor for calves needed to go down in the case of a nought to three-month-old calf - that is the recommendation - and similarly, it had to go up for a one to two-year-old. The question now is whether it should be one figure for male and female or a separate figure for a male and female. The general agreement around the table was that it should reflect the best available science, which determines, exactly as the Deputy said, the male one to two-year-old should increase to 61 kg/N per year and the female go down to 55 kg/N per year. That is the proposal that came from the group and it has gone forward to the appropriate assessment process on how it applies to farms. We regularly update the tables based on the best available science, whether they are about nutrient content of slurry, which was done previously, the dairy banding and excretion figures, the calf or the one to two. The only way we can give certainty to farmers is if we have the confidence to say this is the most up-to-date material we can use.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

The only one thing I would say is that every week or every few months we are getting some bit of different information. While I do not disagree with the information, farmers do not know where to go. This is for the simple reason that farmers who are taking from the dairy herd to rear calf to beef and are buying all male animals will now be cut by 8%. Last week, they were at 170 kg N/ha, but their animals will go up to 61 kg/N per year if this comes in so farmers will be down eight in every 100 animals. It is as simple as that. That is a change to any farm, no matter how it is looked at. The nitrates or fertiliser is another change and banding is another change. It is constant in recent times. Why can we not make a system? For example, at least we know what the CAP is for 2023 to 2028. At the moment, whether it is on excretion from cows or movement of slurry, or now the number of bullocks, it has changed. This keeps constantly changing and farmers cannot keep adapting to that kind of scenario. They need to have a clear road, if we are to keep enthusiasm. For farmers who are rearing 100 bullocks and who must tell a young girl or fellow who they are trying to get to take over that this change will bring the herd down to 92 animals, that is a big difference. When will we stop this drip-feed of information and constant changes? If it does not stop, it will knock the socks off the agricultural sector and farmers. We need a clear path that states it will be 170 kg N/ha or 220 kg N/ha for the next five years; cattle will be 55 kg/N, 57 kg/N or 21 kg/N for the calf for the year; or X amount of fertiliser can be put out and it will not change. We cannot keep going the way we are, changing something every week for farmers. The nature restoration law and other measures are coming in. It is constant, week in and week out. Farmers cannot keep accepting this crap. I am not personally blaming the witnesses but it will not work because we are knocking the stuffing out of a sector and we will stymie investment and do harm.

Look at the numbers in the suckler herd. Look at what is happening. It is wobbling at the moment. Why? It is because confidence is leaving the sector with this drip feed. The same will happen in the dairy sector because farmers are sick and tired. I cannot say I will leave this field for meadow and then after a few weeks decide I will let the cattle in. Farmers are not robots that can be turned and twisted every way. They have a system set up. They adapt a farm for it. When can a Department give a guideline for three years? One for five years is really what is needed. Every scheme we go into, whether it is the basic income support for sustainability, BISS, scheme, the eco scheme or ACRES, is for five years. However, when it comes to nitrates and all the stuff that is going on at the moment, the information is wobbling from month to month. We cannot keep doing that.

Mr. Bill Callanan

I accept that there is a lot coming at farmers in this space. We all accept that. No one would challenge that reality. However, equally, I have to push back on the issue of looking at nitrogen excretion figures. That was initiated by the Department at the behest of stakeholders. We were asked to look at it and as a consequence, we asked Teagasc to look at it. We did not prompt it; it was the stakeholders in the water quality group who said they wanted the best available science and the changes the Deputy is talking about have flowed from that. I accept that there is a lot on farmers and that we have to make it as comprehensible as possible. In terms of the overall conversation, I am singular in my focus.

Under legislation, we have a requirement to improve water quality. Everyone shares in the necessity and ambition of securing a derogation. It behoves us all to look forward. We might not agree on the maps, this part or the other, but what message are we giving to farmers about support and working together on these twin objectives? It is not just legislation that is driving the issue of water quality. This is as much about the issues of the marketplace and sustainability that we are hearing about from industry. We just came from a meeting with industry and the message is the same, in that the marketplace is demanding sustainability. This is a difficult thing to describe to farmers, but I describe it to them as a hierarchy of food. If we are short of food, its availability is the only judgment we make on the matter. Once availability is achieved, the next standard is achieving food safety, as people want safety and confidence in the food they are eating. Once that standard is met – Irish food has done so – it is all about the sustainability message in the marketplace. In the longer term, food and health will also be factors. Sustainability is expected by the marketplace, not just by the regulations.

Collectively, we have to look forward and decide how to work together constructively to improve water quality, which has a positive knock-on effect in terms of the delivery of the nitrates directive and the water framework while giving us good standing when arguing coherently for a continuation of the derogation in this country. We all face that challenge.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

May I ask a question?

An Cathaoirleach

No, the Deputy is way over time. However, his point was that the constant changing was causing farmers significant uncertainty and anxiety. With another change in the stocking rate, farmers do not know where they stand. I will let Deputy Fitzmaurice contribute again at the end, but I now call Senator Daly.

Senator Paul Daly

I have three questions relating to the review. Senator Lombard touched on some of them, but the witnesses might comment a little more. When we agreed the review, did we set the bar too high and the lag time too short for the actions we are taking? Is there any way of getting more realistic and achievable targets within the time we have allowed ourselves? It is a two-year review, but there was no lag time at all between when the State came home from signing the deal and when the farmers were told what actions they needed to take. Some of them were only taking up those actions when the water situation was being reviewed. If we negotiate a similar review again, can anything be done with the height of the bar and the length of the lag?

Before Twitter goes mad, I will next be quoting. An Taisce appeared before us two weeks ago. I want the witnesses to comment on a couple of remarks its representatives made. I am not saying they were wrong or right, but I want to hear the witnesses’ opinions. In response to a question I asked, An Taisce gave us the impression that urine patches were more detrimental than slurry spreading with trailing shoes. It quoted Teagasc’s figures, saying that 63% of the nitrate leached was due to urine patches as opposed to slurry spreading. I asked An Taisce a question, and I am trying to get the other side of the argument now. Had I been a layman – I am not, as I am a farmer – it would have sounded like An Taisce was selling the zero grazing model. For the same reason, it was also negative towards and critical of multispecies swards. It highlighted the amount of leaching from clover and multispecies swards even though those had been sold to us as a silver bullet. I am not saying I agree with An Taisce, but I want to hear both sides of the story. Perhaps the Department and Teagasc will comment.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Paul Daly)

I refer to the question on multispecies.

Dr. Leanne Roche

Regarding where An Taisce took that information from, it came from a Waters of LIFE developed document called a framework of measures document, which identifies all the measures that can reduce losses of nitrogen, phosphorous and sediment to our waters. It gives an effectiveness of low, medium or high. However, that document is built solely for that project and it has not been validated yet. That is their estimate at present Some of those have significant research, so they can really justify what they said, but some has very little research. I think the multispecies swards was given a low benefit for nitrate for the reason from the research but there may be newer research coming on board that will change that.

Dr. Stan Lalor

Returning to the N surplus question, the graph in the An Taisce opening statement was mentioned. That graph came from a Teagasc report published in July 2021. The context of that graph and data was a very important identification in the Teagasc report, in that when it comes to N surplus, which is what the report was assessing, there are a number of potential areas in the farm where that N surplus could be apportioned as coming from. The data An Taisce cited accurately stated that a portion of the N surplus can come from what is deposited by animals when they are grazing, because that is part of the N cycle there. It was highlighting that is a relatively large component compared with the model data from the other sources, which are N fertiliser - which is also a significant part - slurry and everything else. The urine patches were relatively large because it is a large part of how nitrogen is cycled within the farm. The context of the study and numbers in that report were around a number of issues we were trying to look at at the time relating to the various impacts on a number of measures such as the slurry application, the closed period and so on. It was looking at all the models we have in relation to N flows. That was the context of An Taisce citing that data. It was citing the report we had when citing that data and identifying the fact that urine patches are a factor. The other thing regarding the source of that data, however, is that when you are modelling farm behaviours such as that, you are looking at how farm systems operate. It highlights clearly that, as with many issues related to water quality, an awful lot of it is about the right measure in the right place. Looking at these practices when it comes down to the individual farmers or even the individual flow pathways within fields and so on and highlights the complexity of the issue. To be fair to An Taisce, I think one of the points it was making heavily is that the right measure in the right place is very important. These various sources contribute at different times, some more significantly than others, depending on the situation. That was the point being made and it was citing the Teagasc data to do that because we had done the analysis on where the N surplus was coming from.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Paul Daly)

There were two more questions - first about setting the bar too high and the time lag and the second on the anomaly in the scheme.

Mr. Bill Callanan

ACRES is a voluntary measure. It is participation and those areas; it not a whole-farm approach like it was in the likes of REPS. As it is available to farmers to pick specific areas to put in, I presume that is what happened in the situation mentioned. I suppose we are trying to ensure that a farmer participating participates for the right measure in the right place. Looking at the evolution, REPS was a scheme that was the whole farm and was broad and shallow. The iterations of that became more specific in saying, for example, that if a farmer is in a water quality area, that farmer needs to pick the water quality measures. That is the direction of travel that has been taken. The further development to that is the community approach where everybody is participating at a regional level in ACRES. What is the term? It is co-operation; I can never remember that term. The co-operation measure is based around the Burren model where you get a whole series of farmers within an area to generate that impact. It is ultimately a voluntary scheme but within it, there are effectively requirements that farmers are taking the right action for the identified priorities for that land type or land area, whether it is biodiversity, water quality, etc. We do not have the stick to say that somebody picking a voluntary measure here is prescribed or required to do it somewhere else.

On the time lag, I refer to the reason for the Commission demanding a two-year review. I have said this to the committee before. I have been involved in this since 2010 and there have been a number of reviews. At the time, when we looked at the negotiation process versus four years previously, there effectively had been an increase of 30,000 tonnes of nitrogen per annum on average in that period compared with the four years previous. That has been significantly reversed the past two years and beyond. There was also an increase in the dairy herd of 300,000-odd cows and, simultaneously, a decline in water quality. That is what drove the Commission's requirement. It stated it was putting a new action programme in place and granting a derogation but it wanted a two-year review to ensure the water quality is passing the required tests or not. That is what prompted it. What we have seen now is that dairy expansion has effectively stopped in terms of the numbers of additional dairy cows last year. We have made tremendous progress in reducing chemical fertiliser. In 2018, Ireland used 408,000 tonnes of elemental nitrogen. That is the nitrogen part of the bag, so an awful lot more than that is spread. It was less than 300,000 tonnes last year. That is the progress that has been made. However, we need to continue to drive that progress in terms of farmer understanding, farmer engagement, a multifactor approach but, importantly, that industry is engaged as well in working with farmers on the messages we are giving on the need. That two-year review was based on specific realities of the time. I do not see that as just the sole measure of the discussion next time but we will have to go back with improvement in water quality. I want that to be clear. I cannot see positive progress in the absence of that and it behoves us all to work together to do it.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I welcome the representatives from Teagasc and the Department. More than anyone, they know that there is a great deal of grief, disappointment and anger regarding the implications of compliance with the nitrates directive, but we have to be responsible and face up to the realities. The Department has been consistent on this matter. The witnesses were asked to submit a sort of Q and A. We looked at the responses. Teagasc and the Department are the two leading State agencies. They are to the fore of all of this in terms of their own game. The big question is whether it is still possible to maintain Ireland's nitrates directive at the current level while ensuring there are improvements in water quality. Teagasc says "Yes". That is important because it gives hope to people. and farmers want to hear of that. There is a long lead-in time in the context of monitoring results. There is a view that farmers are playing more than their part, but everyone who consumes, uses or comes in contact with water has a responsibility. That is part of it. Will the witnesses comment on that very briefly? When Teagasc says "Yes", do the witnesses really believe that?

Professor Frank O'Mara

Yes, we absolutely do. The point we made in our response was that the fundamentals as to why we justified a derogation in the first place are still there. We have an ability to grow large amounts of grass. We have a long growing season, so grass continues to grow late into the year and starts early the following year. We have a high percentage of grassland across our agricultural landscape. Those fundamentals are still there and they are important in ensuring agriculture's impact on water quality is minimised. An awful lot has happened in the past decade or longer, in particular in the past couple of years, to bring about improved practices on farms regarding water quality. That has been on the regulatory side - I think we quoted that 39 individual measures were brought into the nitrates action programme over the past four years. A great deal has also happened on the advisory side and the co-op side in the programmes they have to encourage farmers to adopt the right measures in the right places. We feel all of that is very positive. Of all of the measures introduced in the past couple of years, the effect has not yet really been seen, or at least not fully seen, in water quality. We expect to see the effects of those appearing in our water quality over the next couple of years. We see challenges. Getting all the right practices in all the right places is a big challenge. There is a particular challenge around sufficient slurry storage on farms so that farmers have the flexibility to manage slurry in an optimum way, getting the agronomic value out of it, and to minimise its impact on water quality.

Senator Tim Lombard resumed the Chair.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I thank the professor. I wish to share this with him. He is highly respected and so is his organisation. Teagasc has an advisory capacity and educational functions, as well as knowledge and knowledge transfer. All of that is critically important in this regard. Well done. Keep doing it and keep speaking loudly about it. Farmers genuinely respect Teagasc. It has put many people through. It is hugely to the fore in education, knowledge and demonstration farms - I have been to many of them. I know of Teagasc's work. It is very impressive. Agriculture is a science. It is a learning process, but it is a science. The more we go on, the more we recognise that. We talk about simplification and simple aspects but it is a science. People have to learn and understand. I encourage Teagasc to continue doing that, to lead at the front and be vocal about it. The answer that Teagasc gave today is "Yes" when it comes to derogation. That is positive news. That is not getting out there. There is a view that State agencies are a bit watery on it. I am not saying that but it is a view out there.

Teagasc is working on proposals to increase support, targeted towards farmers as part of the wider water quality campaign. Will the witnesses share a few concise sentences on that?

Professor Frank O'Mara

Over the past six years, the ASSAP has been in place. There are now more than 40 advisers between ourselves and the co-ops dedicated just to water quality. They are doing important work. We want water quality as a topic across all of our advisory activities with farmers. We have close to 300 advisers in total working with farmers. We deal with 44,000 clients, have events and put out a great deal of material that all farmers can access. In all of our activities, major events this year, conferences, discussion group activities and one-to-one engagement with farmers, we want a focus on water quality and targeting the right measure for the right time of year.

Senator Victor Boyhan

Will Teagasc keep us involved? We are stakeholders in agriculture too. I go looking for stuff - Teagasc does not come to me. I got its magazine today and I get regular communication but Teagasc - I say this to the Department as well - has the opportunity to develop stronger relationships with the members of this committee. We tease out questions for agriculture, food and the marine twice a week, perhaps. We are part of the players in terms of stakeholders. I ask Teagasc and the Department to keep us up to date. They have done but if you go looking, you can get anything you want. It is important. I can only say from my personal experience but I have found going on Teagasc's farm walks, training programmes, seeing the training programmes and going to open days really useful and beneficial. I have learned. By learning, I bring that information back to this circle.

Teagasc recognises that there is a fear of additional cuts to the maximum stocking rates. This is a significant fear. It is an obstacle regarding investment for farmers. What can Teagasc say about that? It will impact its work and progression. People may not invest in agriculture in their farms in improving and embracing new innovations and technology because that costs money - new work practices cost money too. What does Teagasc have to say to farmers who genuinely fear a cull in their herds?

Deputy Jackie Cahill resumed the Chair.

Professor Frank O'Mara

I take the Senator's point about keeping the committee engaged. We would be very happy to welcome the committee to visit one of the catchments in the agricultural catchment programme or to come to an event as part of the ASSAP programme. On the potential for a further cut in the maximum stocking rate limit, we recognise it is a huge fear for farmers. We deal with them every day. It is a huge concern for them regarding the impact it would have on their incomes. It is a huge concern for other farmers outside of derogation because they see a potential disruption to the farming locality if dairy farmers are trying to access additional land. The issue is to bring certainty as soon as possible would be helpful. As I answered in an earlier question, the key thing we are doing with farmers who are worried about that uncertainty is trying to at least let them see that there are options. Concerning the 2,000-odd farmers who were affected by the cut to 220 N/ha, the big role we had there was telling them what the options were for their farms and what might work best on their farms that would allow them to mitigate the impact. There are options available. I will not go back through them all. That sort of reassurance and guidance is what we can give to farmers.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I commend the professor on his excellent work and the work of his organisation. It is powerful and empowering. That is where we have to go with agriculture.

Professor Frank O'Mara

My colleague wants to make a comment.

Dr. Pat Dillon

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I thank the representatives from the Department and Teagasc for coming before us. We have heard a great deal about nitrates in recent weeks. I thank the Chair for taking a strong lead on the issue. We are where we are because we had issues with water quality. The situation did not improve as we would have expected despite the fact that we were running a number of initiatives to improve water quality. We are now approximately four or five weeks into this process. Aside from the aspiration that we will assess and look at everything, nobody coming before the committee has been able to tell us how we are going to improve water quality with specific reference to agriculture. We have a very narrow window within which to do that. I appreciate what Teagasc is saying. Professor O'Mara stated that our landscape is heterogenous in terms of factors controlling nitrogen and phosphorous. We probably have a unique environment that is quite challenging for us. I appreciate the issue with slurry. I do not think we are seeing sufficient movement. Senator Boyhan hit the nail on the head when he said this needs a cross-Department approach. It is a matter for the Departments of housing and agriculture, and we are operating in a silo in that we are only dealing with representatives of the Department of agriculture. The Department of housing has a considerable role to play in respect of planning and trying to fast-track storage for slurry. The Department will have to give us greater capacity to roll out grants and so on.

I will ask Professor Dillon and Professor O'Mara if there are specific projects they have seen anywhere in the world that have addressed water quality and that we could implement quickly rather than being purely aspirational? We know where we need to get to but we need some quick fixes. There is a unique setting in Cork where the blue dot project is happening but we have seen some progress and success there. Given the soil formation and the nature of the soil there, that success is probably not replicable across the country. There must be some initiatives that have been taken someplace where interventions have addressed this issue. Could the witnesses talk to me a bit about those?

Professor Frank O'Mara

I thank the Deputy. I was going to mention the blue dot project as a home example of doing things well. There are many other good examples around Ireland. The Deputy mentioned the catchments. The Timoleague catchment is often talked about and various things have been said about it. One of the key points about it is that over the course of the monitoring period on that catchment, the number of cows has increased significantly with no impact on water quality. That is an example where farmers have managed the increased number of cows very well in order to ensure that there has been no additional impact on water quality.

We have lots of examples of good practice like that and things being done right.

The nitrogen report, which we published in February of last year, set out the impact of the range of measures that have been introduced or were to be introduced in 2024. In total the measures would have led to a reduction in the loss of nitrogen leached of 8 kg per hectare. If that is scaled up across all the hectares in the various river catchments, it would make an enormous contribution to reducing the load to the levels necessary in the rivers we are concerned about. The blueprints are there. Implementing best practice as we know it is very important. Supporting farmers to do that is our job, through giving them the knowledge and by demonstrating to them how it works and that it can be done. There are also things that farmers might want to do that cost a lot of money, such as investing in slurry storage capacity and so on. That is a big challenge for farmers, especially in an environment where there is uncertainty about the future stocking rates they might be able to carry.

Dr. Pat Dillon

One good example is our research farm in Curtin's farm where we reduced the nitrate lost to groundwater by 50% over a three- to four-year period. We did a number of things. We reduced the nitrogen. We used it more efficiently and more linked to grass growth. We stopped ploughing up pasture. Ploughing pasture results in massive loss of nitrogen, especially from old permanent pasture. We spread dirty water over a much larger area than just a confined area. There are practices we can put in. Slurry was put out at the right time of year. We have the keys and we know the things that need to be implemented at farm level. The yard needs to be totally sealed in terms of any point source on the farm. That all showed significant reductions in losses there.

Professor Frank O'Mara

As it is a very important question, I might ask Dr. Lalor to come in as well.

Dr. Stan Lalor

The big challenge here comes back to the advisory and education side. As Senator Boyhan has said, it is very important to say that this can be done but there are a number of challenges in that. We need to focus more on making sure we have the right measures in the right place. The complexity within that is the time they are given to work. That is the nub of the issue we are talking about. Certainly, working at advisory level, we are trying to work with farmers on this. We are trying to bring them with us on a journey. That has come up regularly this evening and it features regularly in the narrative anyway.

If we break that down, it is all about farmers having the confidence to act. We can talk about uncertainty, etc., and they are all factors. We need to connect farmers better so that they understand the issues. When people understand something, they are on board. They need to understand the issues and understand what the solutions to those issues are. They also need motivation to put those solutions into action. Certainly, in terms of trying to develop water quality initiatives and campaigns, they are very much at the forefront of what we are trying to think about developing.

The connection with data came up in the earlier discussion with Senator Lombard. We have a lot of data and there is a job of work to be done to connect that with farmers who can use it and localise it to their own specific circumstances and their own catchment, community and farm. That is a big area of work. There is a lot of work we can do with others in terms of EPA monitoring and so on. There is a lot of work we can do to try to connect with all the stakeholders on that. With that comes local ownership. If we can make those connections, we will get local buy-in. We have a lot of vehicles with which to do that. We work through one-to-one advice, discussion groups, various events and everything like that. As the director mentioned, the ambition is to integrate water quality into everything we do. That is not just on water quality; we also try to look at all the environmental areas when doing that.

There is another important part here, one we are acutely aware of. We are trying to work all the time to mobilise and get the most out of all the actors who can help and support farmers in this. The private advisers have appeared before this committee. They are really important actors in this. Not for a second would we dismiss their importance given the reach they have with farmers and the work they do with them and can do with them. We work very hard with other advisers around the industry through what we call the agriculture knowledge innovation system, AKIS. We are very aware that many people can positively influence farmers. They may be people working with them from a financial aspect, through the agri-media, people in retail, co-ops, meat processors and everything else. All of these people are part of how farmers can make sense of all this and the support that we can put around them. How we can reach all of those is really important.

One very effective model we have in building that integration and awareness is the signpost programme specifically for the greenhouse gas problem. That is obviously a platform on which we can build, with other issues relating to water quality, biodiversity and so on. We can use those connections to get everyone on the same page and provide clarity of message. The tools are available with which we can connect farmers to the issues. One of the biggest challenges farmers have is that when the issue is big and national, it becomes abstract and it can be hard to tease out a farmer's individual contribution to it. That contribution needs to be made as simple as possible with the right measure in the right place. That is notwithstanding the great effort that is already being made.

People have mentioned ACRES, a very specific and voluntary scheme. There is an awful lot of work going into good agricultural and environmental practice compliance. There is also a lot of work going into derogation compliance and support. While a lot of extra measures are coming in those, there is a lot of positivity when trying to connect farmers better with the challenges there, for example, in the last round of the derogation, inclusion in training and things like that. All of those measures are helping to build momentum. It is really important to recognise at farm level the amount of goodwill there is for action. We also need to harness it before it runs out.

That is where we need clarity to deal with the risk of uncertainty. Everybody is doing their best to try to clear that up. It is not that anybody is deliberately trying to make it uncertain. Clarity of direction will be really helpful both in terms of the advisers signposting farmers in the right direction and the supports being there to do that. I apologise for the long-winded answer.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

In effect, Dr. Lalor is saying the building blocks are in place. We can retain the 220 kg N/ha and anything we need to do it is there, with education obviously being key. Are our farmers sufficiently engaged in the education piece?

Dr. Stan Lalor

Yes, I think they are. Farmers are dealing with Teagasc and private advisers. There are farmers who are contracting support by way of advisory services. They are doing that and they are engaging. They are doing that in terms of risk management for the business, development of the business and trying to make sure the business is future-proofed. This is a significant part of future-proofing a business. Farmers are engaged in that. If we can work on connecting them with the issues, understanding the issues, simplifying things and putting the right signposting to the right programmes or the right actions, we can make progress for sure.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

Obviously, we do not know who will be here in three years' time, but I hope we will not be having the same debates here again. Notwithstanding funding, what is the single biggest impediment to retaining the 220 kg N/ha derogation? What will stop us holding on to that while attaining the improvements that we need in water quality? What is the building block that is missing?

Professor Frank O'Mara

An Cathaoirleach

I ask Senator Lombard to take the Chair as there is another vote in the Dáil.

Senator Lombard resumed the Chair.

Dr. Pat Dillon

The average means nothing. Some farmers are perfect, while others are not perfect and have to get right.

Professor Frank O'Mara

The figure is not insignificant. It will not be 1% or 2%.

Professor Frank O'Mara

Any way of getting information about soils is very good. In itself, what this does is it enables farmers to do good nutrient management planning. In other words, they can plan their fertiliser programme or plan how and where to use slurry or farmyard manures. It is an enabler of good nutrient management planning.

When Deputy Flaherty asked what would be the one single measure to be taken, I said additional slurry storage would be the one thing to do if I could wave a magic wand. The issue with the time lag is that it takes time for a measure that has been implemented on a farm to have an impact on water quality. It depends on the soil type and so on. We have brought in an awful lot of measures over the last four years. We have spent a good bit of time talking about one of those measures, namely, the reduction in the stocking rate from 250 kg N/ha to 220 kg N/ha.

We have had measures like banding. We have had changes to the maximum fertiliser levels, and farmers have gone beyond those regulations and applied much less fertiliser than the regulation might have suggested to be the maximum allowed. We have had changes as regards soiled water storage and so on. There are a range of measures, and it will take time before we see their impact on water quality. That is the point I was making. I use that as a way to say I see hope in terms of our water quality because we have all those measures in the bag, that is, they have been brought in-----

Senator Aisling Dolan

Yes, and implemented very well.

Professor Frank O'Mara

-----and we hope to see their effect over the coming years in improved water quality.

Senator Aisling Dolan

It is like working with many different agencies. As Professor O'Mara said, it is also the EIP funding of €60 million for the areas of priority action. There is funding that is coming through from the local authority and Inland Fisheries Ireland as well. They have many different programmes around trying to improve water quality in the areas they are looking at as well as the rivers.

I really liked hearing that Teagasc had increased the stocking rate on a farm but that it was able to manage and that what was done did not have an impact in the context of nitrogen. I do not know if it was Dr. Dillon who mentioned that. I think he mentioned Timoleague. Ireland leads the way internationally in what we do in agriculture,. Our research and development is up there with it, but are there any examples? This question has already been asked, but are there any examples in New Zealand or elsewhere? What would the witnesses in that regard? What we are doing here locally is excellent.

Dr. Pat Dillon

Yes, there is a New Zealand paper on that, I believe, which shows the same thing. It shows that the stocking rate per se does not lead to poor water quality. If you increase the stocking rate, chemical nitrogen and feed input, yes, you will see poor water quality. The stocking rate per se does not have a negative impact because the more grass you utilise, the more milk you produce, so it is a case of more nitrogen put out through milk than is lost to the environment.

I will make a couple of comments on the discussion. Soil fertility is really important, but the problem in Ireland, probably, to a large degree, is low soil fertility. Take lime. In the region of 35% of our soil samples that went through last year had a pH greater than 6.2. That leads to nitrogen use efficiency as well. That is really important going forward.

Senator Aisling Dolan

Deputy Jackie Cahill resumed the Chair.

Mr. Bill Callanan

-----the Border in that regard. Similarly, we also support researchers in Ireland by giving them the building blocks in terms of international horizon engagement and research at European level and working through that.

Teagasc can talk by way of example about the VistaMilk project, which is a collaboration between the Department and SFI. We are very conscious of reaching out to set a structure and we propose to develop a draft research strategy for the years ahead to make sure it is linked. Finally, we also support short desktop-type research to support policy objectives and put them out to ask researchers to compete, engage and provide us with the evidence that is needed for good policy development.

Senator Aisling Dolan

That is key. Having that research helps us to drive policies and enables us to be flexible in responding to the year-on-year need and demand. It is crucial for us to build a case for that. I thank the witnesses for their time.

Deputy Claire Kerrane

I thank the witnesses for their opening statements and detailed submissions. I have a couple of questions, the first of which is to the departmental officials. There have been a lot of applications for targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, grants. I accept there is a process to be followed but all the organisations that have appeared before the committee have raised concerns about the planning aspect and the waiting times to have the applications processed. I am seeking an update on where we are at with the TAMS grants. Given the uncertainty around the derogation and how it works in its current form, farmers are in a very difficult position. They are being asked to invest and may be considering doing so without knowing what will happen with the derogation. That level of uncertainty is very unhelpful, particularly when it comes to money. The grants that are available, that is, the TAMS grants, need to be as effective and efficient as possible in terms of getting them through to farmers.

I have another question for the Department. There was a half-reference to our meeting last week with representatives of the Agricultural Consultants Association, which provides advisory services to more than 55,000 farmers, some of whom are in the derogation. They raised an issue to do with access to the agricultural sustainability support and advisory programme, ASSAP. Will the officials comment on that?

My other questions are relevant to both sets of witnesses. Will the departmental officials respond to those two questions at this point?

Mr. Bill Callanan

Regarding TAMS, the number of areas supported has been massively increased. That is a challenge in terms of the process of approvals, etc. We have received more than 17,000 applications under ten TAMS programmes. The Minister recently announced the opening of a priority application system for tranches 1 and 2. If there is an urgency in getting approval, people can, in effect, be fast-tracked through the system. All those approvals for TAMS grants are being worked through.

I thank Mr. Callanan. My next question is for the Teagasc representatives. Like many other witnesses that have come before us, they mentioned land competition. There is an option for some dairy farmers who are in the derogation or are affected by it to buy or rent additional land. In some cases, that is very difficult or next to impossible to do. We also have targets to meet on growing the amount of our land covered by tillage. Will the witnesses comment on the impact this will have on the tillage sector? It is important to reference that.

It is also important to mention that when representatives from An Taisce appeared at the committee, they were very blunt in saying that all the measures farmers in the derogation area are doing are more or less pointless. They put it to us that all those measures will not be enough. I am concerned that farmers are doing X, Y and Z, which involves hard work and may be at a cost to them, and it might all be for nothing when it comes down to it. Are the Teagasc representatives fully satisfied that the measures farmers are taking and exactly what they are being required to do will be enough? It was quite concerning to hear what our guests from An Taisce had to say in that regard.

A number of organisations that have appeared before the committee have argued we should be looking at water quality and how to address the issues in that regard on a more catchment-by-catchment basis and a lot closer to the ground than we currently are. As we know, every area is different.

The witnesses referenced and half-answered my final question. Teagasc is currently conducting a survey on 100 farms of capacity for slurry storage. When do they expect to publish the detailed analysis of that survey?

Professor Frank O'Mara

Land competition has had an impact on the land available for tillage farmers. There is a lot of competition for land in some areas. If land goes into one use, it cannot be put to another use. That has had an impact. We have been very clear with dairy farmers impacted by the cut to the derogation that extra land is only one option available to them and it might not be the best option. They could start by looking at whether they have animals on their farm other than their dairy cows that they might not need to have. That is in reference to a beef enterprise. We might ask another farmer to contract-rear their replacement heifers. Exporting slurry is an option as well. For some farmers, the smart thing might be to reduce their cow numbers a bit. If they are carrying above their capacity to grow grass, the best and most economical option on some farms might be to reduce cow numbers a little. We are very conscious of pointing out all these different options to farmers to ensure they do not automatically think the first thing they must do is acquire extra land. That is a very important message to get out.

The Deputy asked about what farmers have to do and whether all the measures are pointless. I do not think they are pointless. We are asking a lot of farmers. There are lots of things with which they must comply. There are lots of best-practice measures. We are saying to them that this is the best way to manage their slurry, that is the best way to apply their fertiliser, they should test their soil and so on. We are asking them to do a lot of things. As I said earlier, when we modelled the impact of the measures that have been brought in and the best practice in slurry management and slurry application last year, they all add up. The measures are all relatively small by themselves but they add up to approximately 8 kg N/ha of leeching saved. When we add that up over a catchment, it will deal with the excess nitrogen load into a lot of our catchments. If we can get the right measures implemented in the right places at a wide-scale level, we can make significant progress with water quality.

The Deputy also asked about a catchment-by-catchment approach. I absolutely agree we need to start doing that. Obviously, we have to look at this on a national level.

We have to get down to catchment and sub-catchment level and, ultimately, nearly parish level. That is what my colleagues were talking about. We have a great dataset of water quality with more than 1,000 sampling points throughout the country, maybe more. The data are available on the websites catchments.ie and epa.ie. We have to start bringing the data to local communities and farmers so that they can see in their own areas where there are problems that they themselves or their neighbours need to look at. We need to get down to that catchment level. That is an approach we will be open to be more active in over the coming years.

Deputy Claire Kerrane

I thank Professor O'Mara.

Dr. Pat Dillon

Regarding to the derogation, we are clear that derogation farmers have much more commitment in terms of soil tests, liming, nutrient management, inspections and everything. However, the interpretation might be that we are talking about all farmers. Derogation farmers on their own are not going to solve the problem.

On the catchment issue, Professor O'Mara is 100% right; we have seen it in other countries. Dr. Lalor mentioned the correct measure in the correct place at the correct time. All catchments are going to have different issues. There are different farming systems and different soil types. We need to get all stakeholders involved from the bottom up, as Mr. Callanan mentioned.

Slurry storage was started last May so we will have the final figures this May for the first year of it. The data are being captured electronically so the data could already be there. We will have the first year's data soon but some modelling and costing has to be done with them.

In regard to Mr. Callanan's question about why we need to measure, one of the reasons for measuring is that our capacity requirement is based on 0.33 m3 per cow per week. That is a very old figure and our weekly production per cow has increased. The requirement might be larger now, as opposed to what was there.

Deputy Claire Kerrane

I thank Professor Dillon.

Deputy Johnny Mythen

I apologise for going in and out. Most of the questions have been asked. The Teagasc national survey states that 43% of farms are economically viable. It is frightening that 32% are sustainable and 25% are classified as vulnerable. That is 75% altogether. It is understandable that if there is a major change in the derogation, that 25% of farms are in really big trouble. The sustainable farms are gone and the vulnerable ones are gone straight away. That is what we are trying to deal with. Both Teagasc and the Department have agreed on it. The long grass system satisfies criteria to apply for nitrates derogation. I understand the difficulties in that as well but at least both bodies are on the same sheet here, which is very important. A drop like that is seriously going to affect farms. We are talking about a farmer who has probably 80, 85 or 90 cattle dropping down to 59 cattle. That is not viable for his family. He cannot survive on that. This is serious. I understand the situation with water quality, which is very important.

Senator Eugene Murphy

I will not take too long because Deputy Kerrane has already asked questions about TAMS grants for storage. There is no point in asking the witnesses to return to that.

I engaged quite a bit with farmers. All the farmers I speak to realise the importance of top-quality water. They certainly do not want water that threatens or harms anybody's health. We all know what such water can do. If we have to drop the current nitrogen rate, 220 kg N/ha, to 170 kg N/ha, what will be the consequence for farming as we know it in Ireland?

Mr. Bill Callanan

We have set out the numbers of farmers inspected. Give or take, 6,700 farmers apply for a derogation annually. Of those, between 500 and 700 do not necessarily require the derogation at the end of the year. They will withdraw for one reason or another but will have applied by way of precaution. Half would be over 220 kg N/ha and half would be below that, so there would be an impact in that regard.

There are many farmers who exceed 170 kg N/ha but who have taken action. As identified by the director of Teagasc, actions include moving slurry, availing of an opportunity to take additional land and moving surplus stock through contract rearing.

We are not far from a Government-delivered biomethane strategy and the opportunity to use slurry off farm to generate energy, which is commonplace in some member states, such as Denmark. The impact depends on individual circumstances and the choices farmers make about how they manage their overall stocking rates. I was clear in my opening statement that the nitrates directive is not a limit on stock numbers but on the amount of manure applied.

Senator Eugene Murphy

I appreciate that, particularly as I was not here for Mr. Callanan's opening statement.

Our weather conditions are deteriorating rapidly. As Deputy Kerrane will know, in my part of the country, Roscommon–Galway, there are farmers who probably have to keep the cattle in for most of the year. How much more difficult will it be to succeed if our climate continues to deteriorate, resulting in wetter land and flooding? Is it not going to be another challenge on top of what we have to do now?

Professor Frank O'Mara

Absolutely. Regardless of any nitrates directive, dealing with a scenario like that is very challenging economically for farming. We know from the national farm survey and our economic modelling that the best way to gain a competitive advantage and be profitable is to maximise the use of grass in dairy, beef and sheep enterprises. If, due to weather conditions, grass cannot be grazed on, it is a huge handicap for affected farmers. It is not a good place to be in.

Senator Eugene Murphy

Do the witnesses consult representatives of group water schemes? People in group water schemes throughout the country are so proud of the water quality in their localities. Many receive national awards for what they are doing. Reference was made to breaking things down nearly to parish or local community level. Is there engagement at this level? The representatives of the group water schemes have valuable information. It would make sense to include them in discussions or conversations with the witnesses.

Dr. Stan Lalor

That is a very good point. In all we do, we try to engage with stakeholders. We are always working for our stakeholders. One area where we are trying to look to the future with the advisory service involves trying to reconnect. At national level, Teagasc is engaging actively with stakeholders. It is currently considering how it might re-energise engagement with local stakeholders through our local advisory regions and so on. The Senator has made a very good suggestion regarding a group of stakeholders we could engage with. I am referring to the overall regional advisory level. There can also be an indirect connection. Programmes such as ASSAP, which has been mentioned a lot, are very much connected to industry, which is funding many of the advisers involved. Through LAWPRO and such county council programmes, networks are in place, but the Senator's suggestion on group water schemes is very good.

Dr. Pat Dillon

Based on the groundwater monitoring of the EPA, there was only one point with a reading higher than 50 mg/l last year. Therefore, groundwater readings are quite good, but I take the Senator's point. We need to protect water quality and ensure no manure is spread within a certain radius. There is strict compliance. Generally, our groundwater is good. It is not the major issue we have.

Senator Eugene Murphy

I find that communities have great respect for group water schemes and are very proud of the work they do. Therefore, there would be a big benefit if they were included. I welcome the answers I have been given. I thank the witnesses.

Mr. Ted Massey

On that point, we in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine co-funded a project called Source to Tap specifically for the National Federation of Group Water Schemes. The project concluded last year but it went to the heart of the Senator's point in that if something can be done at community level, there can be great buy-in because people see the direct benefit in their community. The project funded several on-farm measures that helped local water schemes to improve the quality of the drinking water in their areas.

Deputy Claire Kerrane

I want to come back to Professor O'Mara regarding tillage. While we have targets to meet, is the nitrates directive having an impact on the amount of land in tillage?

It is predicted that we will be down approximately 30,000 ha in 2024, which is alarming. I presume the Department is concerned by that prospect. It is going in the opposite direction from our target under the climate action plan.

Professor Frank O'Mara

Although we do not have statistics or details on individual parcels of land, where they have gone, why their use has changed or what it has changed to, we, like the Deputy, are aware of the drop in the amount of land available for tillage coming into this year. The cause of that is probably greatly related to competition for land and so on. We do not have definitive figures in that regard, but that is what we have picked up anecdotally. There is no doubt it has had an impact on the area of land available for tillage. A significant amount of tillage land is in the rental market, on short-term or long-term leases. From time to time, that land is up for play, I suppose, for different people to bid on it. We have seen a big increase in the price of that rental land in recent years. We have data on that. The price increase is driven by increased demand. It is certainly a factor.

Deputy Claire Kerrane

Is the Department concerned at the impact it is having, given that we are going in the wrong direction on the target to increase land covered by tillage?

Mr. Bill Callanan

In terms of a global number, we increased the area for tillage substantially two years ago. Last year, there was a kind of description that the area of arable went down, which it did, but, as the area of beans and other crops went up, we lost approximately 1%. In effect, we had a minor drop last year but we had a substantial increase the previous year in terms of the arable area. It is a concern. The Food Vision tillage stakeholder group is currently concluding its report, which we await. Its final meeting to conclude that work will take place in the very near future. We have to see opportunities, however, in terms of moving manure from livestock holders onto arable. Looking at that as a source of nutrients and an opportunity for cost savings, rather than a competition between dairy and livestock, and how that can be messaged out to farmers is important.

Deputy Claire Kerrane

I thank Mr. Callanan.

An Cathaoirleach

Before I call Senator Lombard, I will make a few points. From the point of view of practical farming, there are definitely management issues with low-emission slurry spreading and the application of low-emission slurry. That needs to be looked at. Not enough research has been done to see if the swivel or whatever you call it can have the same effect as low-emission slurry spreading. There is no doubt that slurry is coming back in with silage with the low-emission slurry spreading. It is definitely causing problems this winter as regards the level of milk fever in cows. It is causing an issue. A farmer can try to have it as watery as he likes but, especially when there is a dry year, as there was in 2023, with slurry going out at the end of March and the first cut silage happening at the beginning of April, it was still possible to see the lines of the slurry on the field in the last week of May after the silage was cut. It is not working in practice. There has been significant investment in it. We want to get slurry out in the most emissions-friendly manner but we really need to look at that practice. The swivel was put forward as an option but it seemed to die a death. I cannot see why it would not have the same impact in terms of not letting out emissions and it would give a far better distribution of slurry, rather than leaving it in straight lines in the fields.

Another matter that is frustrating for farmers is that although water quality is a significant issue, and we all want it to improve, farmers in derogation feel like they are the only target as regards financial sanctions and penalties. It was stated earlier that we can distinguish from where the pollution is coming. One would have a fair job to convince farmers that is happening. The reality is that some smaller towns have no water treatment plants whatsoever. Some larger towns, including my town, have one simple answer to heavy rain, which is to open the sewerage gates and in, for example, the case of Thurles, let it off down the River Suir. That happens regularly. Towns do not have the capacity to deal with heavy rain. Storm water and sewage are being mixed. If storm water is being put down a silage pit, it has to be kept away from all contaminants. It baffles me that large municipal districts can have storm water and sewage mixed together. It is illogical. The witnesses would rightly say it is the job of the Oireachtas to get Irish Water up to the pace of the game. At the moment, it is definitely not there.

As regards the impact forestry is having, we obviously want extra forestry in the context of our battle with climate change, but forestry and water quality is an equation that has to be worked out. There was reference to what the representatives of An Taisce said when they appeared before the committee. An Taisce had one answer to water quality, and that was to reduce stocking rate. That is all it was interested in. I mean no disrespect to the organisation. It is perfectly entitled to put forward its point of view and we gave it the opportunity to do so at the committee, but it put little or no value on all the other measures farmers are taking. They actually said that when a farmer spreads slurry does not matter. I listened to Mr. Callanan making the point that we have to show improvement when we are going back to try to win this argument. As a farmer who has a derogation, I am worried that it takes a long time for water quality to improve. Serious regulations and restrictions have been put on farmers who have derogations, whether that is the requirement for roadways to slope away from water courses or for water tanks to be moved away from water courses. During the week we had the announcement of strict regulations on the exporting of slurry and the reporting of that exportation. I was talking to the Minister while we were voting in the Dáil. I fully see the logic behind the regulations and that the Department wishes to ensure there is compliance behind the export of slurry. We are doing all these things now. We have nearly a foolscap page of things we are doing but it will take time for them to have an impact. Senator Paul Daly made the point earlier that he was on an farm, some of which was in ACRES. On the part of the farm not in ACRES, the exact opposite was being done compared with the part that was in ACRES, and that was having a detrimental impact on water quality.

The real worry for derogation farmers, who have had an onerous burden put on them, is that no matter what they do, factors outside their control will stop us achieving the retention of our derogation. Obviously, I meet farmers in my constituency. We are a very strong dairy county. A small number of beef farmers there also have derogations. Farmers are extremely nervous that other factors will impact on the water quality but the farmers are the only ones who will get the blame. Dairy farmers with derogations are putting their shoulders to the wheel, but they are worried that other people are not doing so in the context of financial and regulatory matters.

In spring 2022, the Department was in Brussels and the rules for the game as regards the review coming at the end of 2023 were agreed. It is essential that we get parameters in place that actually reflect the water quality in this country and give us scope to legitimately show we have good water here, which we have. We are third or fourth best in Europe in that regard. Listening to An Taisce at the previous meeting, one got the sense that the ideal solution would be for all our cattle to be indoors, but that is not sustainable farming.

When we go to Holland or other countries where cattle are indoors and look at the watercourses, the water quality is an awfully long way behind ours. We need to give what we are doing time to work. We can very clearly show to the Commission we have gone on a very determined road to put enough regulations in place on farmers to have a positive impact on water quality. This has to be given time to work. At the back end of last year when we had the uproar over the 250 kg N/Ha dropping to 220 kg N/Ha the point coming through very loudly and clearly from farmers was that they are doing A, B, C, D, E and F and these measures have not been given the opportunity to work.

This brings us back to the point we had previously on the breeding period. How can we as an industry plan effectively if, potentially, the vote were to happen months or weeks before the calving season starts?

Mr. Ted Massey

An Cathaoirleach

I was only bringing a bit of light to proceedings.

Mr. Bill Callanan

The Deputy can get away with that, but I cannot.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

I thank the witnesses for appearing here. Between other things, I have been listening and watching carefully. We are all here for the same purpose. We want to help farmers to continue and to ensure that they have a livelihood. This derogation is causing many farmers deep concern. Many small farmers say that they have to reduce their herd from, say, 58 head, down to 48. Their sons say that the farm is no longer viable. There have been several instances of this. In any case, it is a struggle nowadays to keep young fellows on the land because they can see all their mates finishing work at four or five o'clock on a Friday evening. It is different for farmers as everyone here knows. Farming is more than an eight-hour day. It can often be more like 16 hours at certain times of the year during calving and the silage and hay seasons.

The main point is that we are all in favour of pristine water and agree that our waters must perfect. That is fine, but it should apply across the board. If the EU Commissioner who visited here is so concerned about water, why does he not insist that the Government of the day addresses the issue of the local authorities and water treatment systems? This has been a problem for a number of years. The treatment systems are in chaos and are polluting rivers and streams, and raw sewage is going into the ocean. Why is the poor farmer and the poor cow blamed for everything? I attended a meeting of vibrant community in Moyvane in north Kerry last Friday night. More than 200 people were there. No more houses can be built there. The planning authority will not grant permission for anyone to build another house in the village catchment area. Moyvane is a satellite village serving Listowel, Abbeyfeale and even Leeside in Tralee. It is a grand place. The people there have been looking for a water treatment plant for years. The council is aware of it and it has been highlighted and brought up here, like many other instances of areas such as Curragh, Scartaglin, Castleisland and other places. Why is it that cows and farmers are blamed and are charged with the responsibility of having perfect water? On the other hand, at the same time, no responsibility or no funding is forthcoming from this Government that is purely Green Party-driven and wants to drive farmers off the face of the earth. Why is it that we cannot fight this in Europe and insist that fair play be given? I can understand rules and regulations and we must have clear water. However, if it must be had from the farmers, then surely it must be had from the local authorities that have the responsibility to ensure they are not polluting. It has been proven all round the country that they are polluting. Yet, the Ministers in charge of this are not looking at this issue at all. It is unfair. Farmers feel demonised and vilified. They are being castigated every day for blighting the environment. It is not fair. The witnesses came in here tonight with good intentions and they are doing their part in perfecting the world. We appreciate their knowledge and expertise very much. However, the question that must go from this committee is: why is it only the farmers and not the local authorities that have this responsibility?

In other instances, I have had people with problems with septic tanks. Last year, a woman told me she would have to pay €19,000 to get her septic tank in order. At the time there was no help available for her. She is demonised, but the local authorities are not. It is time that we, the politicians, stood up to see that fair play is meted out. I know the committee has been here all evening while I was doing different things. I thank the Cathaoirleach for allowing me to contribute

An Cathaoirleach

No bother. We have covered the points the Deputy made and the witnesses have commented on them. Is that okay?

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

That is fine.

An Cathaoirleach

The next public meeting of the joint committee will be at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, 20 March, 2024. The committee will continue its examination of compliance with the nitrates directive and the implications for Ireland. I thank the witnesses for their contributions. There is no further business.

The joint committee adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 20 March 2024.

Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine díospóireacht - Wednesday, 6 Mar 2024

Compliance with the Nitrates Directive and Implications for Ireland: Discussion (Resumed)

Mr. Bill Callanan

Professor Frank O'Mara

Mr. Bill Callanan

Mr. Bill Callanan

Mr. Ted Massey

Mr. Ted Massey

Mr. Bill Callanan

Mr. Bill Callanan

Mr. Bill Callanan

Professor Frank O’Mara

Mr. Bill Callanan

Professor Frank O'Mara

Dr. Stan Lalor

Dr. Stan Lalor

Mr. Bill Callanan

Mr. Bill Callanan

Mr. Ted Massey

Mr. Ted Massey

Mr. Ted Massey

Mr. Bill Callanan

Mr. Bill Callanan

Mr. Bill Callanan

Dr. Pat Dillon

Mr. Bill Callanan

Mr. Bill Callanan

Mr. Bill Callanan

Mr. Bill Callanan

Mr. Bill Callanan

Dr. Leanne Roche

Dr. Leanne Roche

Professor Frank O'Mara

Professor Frank O'Mara

Dr. Pat Dillon

Mr. Bill Callanan

Mr. Bill Callanan

Mr. Bill Callanan

Mr. Bill Callanan

Mr. Bill Callanan

Dr. Pat Dillon

Dr. Pat Dillon

Dr. Pat Dillon

Professor Frank O'Mara

Dr. Leanne Roche

Dr. Stan Lalor

Mr. Bill Callanan

Professor Frank O'Mara

Professor Frank O'Mara

Professor Frank O'Mara

Professor Frank O'Mara

Dr. Pat Dillon

Mr. Ted Massey

Mr. Ted Massey

Mr. Ted Massey

Mr. Ted Massey

Mr. Ted Massey

Mr. Ted Massey

Mr. Ted Massey

Mr. Bill Callanan

Mr. Bill Callanan

Mr. Bill Callanan

Mr. Bill Callanan

Professor Frank O'Mara

Dr. Pat Dillon

Professor Frank O'Mara

Dr. Stan Lalor

Dr. Stan Lalor

Professor Frank O'Mara

Dr. Pat Dillon

Dr. Pat Dillon

Dr. Pat Dillon

Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 6 Mar 2024