Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 28 Feb 2024

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

Before we begin, I remind members to switch off their mobile phones. Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of 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 Cathaoirleach's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Cathaoirleach 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 give evidence from 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. Privilege against defamation does not apply to publication by witnesses outside 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 utterances of members participating online in the committee from within the parliamentary precincts. Members may not participate online in public meetings 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 the meeting is the continued examination of compliance with the nitrates directive and its implications for Ireland. The committee will hear from the following representatives of the Irish Co-Operative Organisation Society, the Agricultural Consultants Association and the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers’ Association. I welcome Mr. Edward Carr, president; Mr. Niall Matthews, dairy committee chairman, and Mr. Eamonn Farrell, dairy policy executive,Irish Co-Operative Organisation Society; Mr. Noel Feeney, president, Mr. Breian Carroll, general secretary, and Mr. Tom Canning, national council for nitrates regulation, Agricultural Consultants Association; and Mr. Sean McNamara, president, Mr. Eddie Punch, general secretary, and Mr. Dan Lynam, representative on the agricultural sustainability support and advisory programme, Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers’ Association. The opening statements have been circulated to members. I will allow five minutes for opening statements and we will then proceed to a question and answer session. I now invite Mr. Carr to make his opening statement.

Mr. Edward Carr

I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it today. I am accompanied by Mr. Niall Matthews, the chairman of Lakeland Co-op and chairman of the Irish Co-Operative Organisation Society's dairy committee, and Mr. Eamonn Farrell from the Irish Co-Operative Organisation Society's dairy policy executive. The Irish Co-Operative Organisation Society, ICOS, is the umbrella body for the Irish co-operative movement, including milk purchasing and processing co-ops. We welcome this opportunity to discuss the future of Ireland’s nitrates derogation.

The Irish dairy co-op sector is strongly committed to improving water quality and supporting environmental best practice across all dairy farms. This commitment is demonstrated by the sector’s increased funding of the agricultural sustainability support and advisory, ASSAP, programme and the development of individual sustainability programmes by dairy co-ops. We welcome the announcement of the new €60 million water quality European Innovation Partnership, EIP, project that will help promote the adoption of measures needed to protect and restore water quality. We recognise the urgent need to improve trends in water quality to meet our obligations under the EU water framework directive.

However, we note that the pace of change is extremely significant with regard to sustainability and co-ops and farmers are travelling on a journey that will take time. Co-ops and farmers are heavily resourcing farm sustainability and water quality is the number one priority for the dairy industry. A further decrease to the nitrates derogation will have devastating economic effects on the agricultural sector. The anticipated economic effects will include a reduction in profitability at farm level, endangerment of investment made at farm and processing level; significant negative implications for the wider rural economy; a driving of land competition and land price inflation; and a reduction in the competitiveness of Ireland’s grass-based production model. A report by Professor Michael Wallace of UCD for inclusion in the ICOS submission demonstrates the significant reduction in farm profitability arising from a further reduction to the nitrates derogation. A dairy farm in band 3 could experience a reduction in net margin of 56%, which is the equivalent of €983 per hectare.

A further reduction in the maximum stocking rate will undermine the competitive advantage of Ireland’s grass-based system, which is based on maximising grass utilisation. ICOS is very concerned that a further reduction in the derogation will drive farmers towards a more global, indoor-type of dairy production. The combination of banding and the reduced maximum stocking rate has already increased pressure on the land market to unsustainable levels with consequences not only for the dairy sector but also for other livestock and tillage farmers. The pressures on the land market will worsen in the event of another reduction in the nitrates derogation. A reduction in farm level profitability in this order of magnitude will have very significant consequences for the downstream dairy processing industry.

Dairy do-ops have supported their farmer members by making the necessary investments in new processing and sourcing new routes to market. Between 2015 and 2022, milk processors have invested €1.6 billion to handle the 3 billion litres of additional milk produced by dairy farmers. In doing so, the dairy co-op sector responded to the very legitimate aspirations of thousands of farm families across Ireland to develop and grow their family farm enterprises following the end of milk quotas. We also acknowledge the comparable investment made by primary producers in their own farm facilities and businesses.

The Irish dairy industry has thrived due to co-operative involvement in the sector. As a result, dairy farmers have benefited from a strong, cohesive and well-structured industry built in the interests of their farmer owners. We are deeply concerned that a further reduction in the derogation will undermine cohesion in the sector resulting in a shortage in milk supply. ICOS calls on the Government, in the strongest possible terms, to safeguard, enhance and protect the investment made by farmers, the processing sector and the State in the Irish dairy sector by securing the long-term future of the Ireland’s nitrates derogation. ICOS calls on the Government to establish an interdepartmental task force, chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach, to properly assess the economic and social implications of a further reduction to the nitrates derogation. In conjunction, we also call on the Government to commission a full impact assessment into the economic and social implications of a further reduction to the nitrates derogation. This assessment should include an analysis of the spatial or regional effects a further reduction will have on the agricultural and rural economy, upstream and downstream.

A further decrease to the nitrates derogation will have huge social implications, with much wider ramifications for rural communities and for the viability of rural-based businesses such as local co-operative agri-retail stores. We are deeply concerned about the social impact a further reduction to the derogation will have on the family farm model and the impact on smaller dairy farms is a particular worry. Of the 2,150 farms directly affected by the reduction from 250 kg N/ha to 220 kg N/ha, 40% of these farms are less than 40 ha in size. A reduction in cow numbers on these farms will put into question their future viability. These are family farms which have been passed on from one generation to the next.

Changes to stocking rates will also mean greater specialisation on dairy farms. This approach runs contrary to our efforts to create a sustainable and viable dairy calf to beef sector. A very legitimate concern is the impact a further reduction in the derogation will have on generational renewal. Unfortunately, huge question marks hang over the future for the next generation. This generation of farmers are well educated in relation to climate change, water quality and the environment. They are embracing new technologies and are willing to adapt to change. However, the constant change in policy is not allowing farm businesses time to deliver the improvements in water quality. Farmers are responding to climate and water quality challenges.

I am sorry Mr. Carr but we are going to have to suspend the meeting because a vote has been called in the Dáil Chamber. We will resume as soon as we can. My apologies.

Sitting suspended at 5 53 p.m. and resumed at 6.16 p.m.

Again, I am sorry for the interruption.

Mr. Edward Carr

A legitimate concern is the impact a further reduction in the derogation will have on generational renewal. Unfortunately, large question marks hang over the future of the next generation. This generation of farmers is well educated on climate change, water quality and the environment. They are embracing new technologies and willing to adapt to change. However, the constant change in policy is not allowing farm businesses time to deliver the improvements in water quality.

Farmers are responding to climate and water quality challenges. By way of example, the application of lime to correct soil pH has increased nationally from over 800,000 tonnes applied annually to more than 1 million tonnes. Furthermore, farmers are making better use of slurry and improved methods of applying it. Currently, 75% of all dairy farmers use low-emission slurry spreading methods. In addition, an increasing number of dairy farmers are incorporating clover and multispecies swards to reduce their nitrogen usage.

The Government and the European Commission must acknowledge that the range of new actions undertaken by farmers will require time to be implemented. In advance of the next negotiations, the Government should prepare a strong science-based document, with EPA input, similar to the marginal abatement cost curve, MACC, for greenhouse gas emissions. A compelling case is needed for the European Commission. The State should map out the most effective mitigation measures on a catchment scale and provide realistic time horizons for the actions adopted by farmers.

The agriculture water quality working group recommends a strong focus on improving slurry storage capacity on farms. While we welcome the current provision of accelerated capital allowances for slurry storage and the intention to provide a separate ceiling for slurry storage under TAMS, additional measures will be needed to de-risk the situation now facing farmers who want to increase their storage and do the right thing. The increased uncertainty over the future of the derogation is a significant blockage to overcome. Increased rainfall due to climate change and a review of slurry storage requirements are also significant factors. The working group has called on the Government to consider all possible ways to achieve this. It has recommended that a 70% capital grant should be available for all farmers investing in slurry storage facilities; investments in slurry storage should be prioritised for fast-track TAMS approvals; planning issues should be dealt with; and access to grant aid for farmers who are not in full compliance with regulatory requirements should be considered for situations where they commit to going beyond the regulatory requirements. ICOS calls on the joint committee to endorse the working group's proposals on slurry storage and for the Government to fund a national slurry storage project through the new climate and nature fund.

The dairy co-op sector has developed a wide range of sustainability initiatives to support their members and farm families, including: long-standing co-op joint programmes with Teagasc that have sustainability as a core element; the roll-out of demonstration or focus farm initiatives under the signpost farm programme; since 2013, the implementation of the sustainable dairy assurance scheme, including carbon footprinting and farmer feedback reports; individual co-op programmes focused on soil fertility, renewable energy, native tree planting and sustainability education and training; since 2018, employment of dedicated sustainability advisers under the innovative water quality agricultural sustainability support and advisory programme, ASSAP; ongoing roll-out of dedicated co-op sustainability programmes with milk payment incentives; and provision of co-funding for the national genotyping programme and development of other animal welfare initiatives.

Co-ops have supported the extension and expansion of the ASSAP. The industry commitment to the programme has trebled in recent years. There are now 42 dedicated ASSAP advisers, of whom 23 are employed by dairy co-ops. The EPA data has shown a net improvement in water quality across the priority areas for action where ASSAP teams are located. This shows that a voluntary scheme, designed and implemented in partnership with farmers, can and does work.

Furthermore, dairy co-ops have brought forward new sustainability programmes to incentivise farmers, designed to enhance the environmental and economic sustainability of their family farms. More co-ops are actively considering programmes for their members.

We acknowledge the importance of compliance and enforcement with respect to water quality. However, we underline the importance of improving awareness of water quality issues at a local and catchment level, providing education and training and the establishment of advisory supports and incentives to deliver long-term improvements to water quality.

Irish agriculture has a strong track-record of key stakeholders collaborating and working together. There needs to be a high priority focus on water quality by all stakeholders to secure the derogation into the long term.

Ireland has a strong research base led by Teagasc, an extensive advisory service and willing farmers who want to do the right thing for water quality and the environment. ICOS believes that in the immediate term, there should be a high priority focus across all advisory services focussed on water quality.

I thank the committee for its time and we look forward to addressing any questions on our opening statement and detailed submission provided to the committee.

I thank Mr. Carr. I now invite Mr. Feeney to make his opening statement.

Mr. Noel Feeney

I thank the Chairman and the committee for the invitation here today. I am president of the Agricultural Consultants Association, ACA, to my right is Breian Carroll, our general secretary and Tom Canning our national council representative for the nitrates regulation, and a former president of the ACA.

The Agricultural Consultants Association is the sole representative body for private agricultural consultants and advisers in Ireland. Currently, the ACA has in the region of 185 member offices in Ireland which employ in the region of 280 agricultural, environmental and forestry consultants, with a further 200-plus people employed as administration and technical staff. The ACA represents 90% of private agricultural consultants and advisers in Ireland. Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine statistics indicate that our members provide advisory support services to more than 55,000 farmers nationally.

With regard to the specific six questions the committee asked us to address on the derogation issue, the first question was on what are the anticipated economic effects for the agricultural sector that would result from a further decrease to the nitrates derogation and the second question was about what are the anticipated social effects for the agricultural sector that would result from a further decrease to the nitrates derogation. Both questions have been addressed in detail by some of the farm bodies in recent discussions with this committee. In the interest of time efficiency, we in the ACA agree with the information provided by these organisations on the effects at both farm level and on the industry nationally with the removal of derogations.

Despite the significant expansion in the dairy herd and the associated increase in milk production following the removal of milk quotas in 2015, Ireland has remained true to the traditional principles of Irish agriculture, namely, grass-based production and family farm units. It must be stressed that we do not have any factory farm dairy systems in Ireland. With the support of the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, ICBF, dairy farmers have a better focus on better breeding strategies and produce cows with higher butterfat and protein yields, better health traits and improved longevity.

Irish dairy farmers have dramatically increased grass yields by embracing new management practices and technologies, such as the incorporation of clover in swards, more efficient use of slurry and effective nutrient management planning. All of this has been achieved with ever decreasing use of chemical fertilisers. The fact that the derogation in place currently for the Danes and the Dutch is to be phased out in the coming years is not a justification for removal of the nitrate derogation from Irish farmers.

The third question was whether it is possible to maintain Ireland’s nitrates derogation at its current level while ensuring that there are improvements to Ireland’s water quality. The ACA believes there is no one solution to improving water quality in Ireland. It will require all stakeholders with responsibility for water quality working together with a common goal to achieve the improvements required. While agriculture is seen as the most significant pressure, other sectors including industry, local authorities and domestic wastewaters are also affecting the quality of our waters.

Even if all farmers were to comply fully with all of the current regulations, scientific experts recognise that it could take up to ten years to see any significant improvements in water quality.

The fourth question was whether the nitrates action programme, NAP, is fit for purpose in protecting Ireland’s water quality. The ACA believes that the NAP has become too cumbersome and extremely difficult for any farmer to comply with and for our members to impart our knowledge and information to their farming clients. Farmers in derogation have to comply with 39 additional measures, in addition to the basic code of good farm practice regulations, which was introduced in 2024, following the review of the NAP in 2023. Some of the current regulations will have little or no impact on improving water quality in Ireland.

Minor administrative breaches of the derogation regulations today will result in rejection of the derogation application, exclusion from derogation for two years and significant cumulative penalties across all support payments. From an advisory perspective, simple errors in preparing derogation applications on behalf of our farmer clients can result in those clients being excluded from derogation for two years, thereby exposing our businesses and causing unnecessary stress for both our members and those farmer clients. The current derogation IT system needs a complete overhaul with dedicated funding to modernise it to ensure our members and farmers have trust in the system.

The agricultural sustainability support and advisory programme, ASSAP, needs to adapt urgently and embrace the ACA, our members and our farmer clients to assist in the programme at local level. Our association and members are available to bring all the latest information and research to our farmer clients, including derogation farmers, and we must be part of the solution on the ground.

The fifth question was whether additional supports are required to ensure farmers can be compliant with the nitrates action programme. The ACA states that there are additional supports to help derogation farmers to be compliant, including the following measures, namely, one, the fast-tracking of planning and the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, applications for slurry storage on farms; two, 70% support for investment in slurry storage facilities on farms, especially on outlying lands, to encourage better distribution of organic nutrients spread; three, removal of the exclusion clause of farmers who have a shortfall in slurry storage capacity from TAMS support; four, restoration of supports for low emissions slurry spreading equipment for all farmers; and five, a VAT reclaim facility on all investments that will contribute to environmental improvements.

Ever-changing regulations, loss of VAT rebate facilities, delays in support payments, planning and TAMS application delays, uncertain produce prices, increasing land rental and decrease in land supply have all contributed to the uncertainty among Irish farmers. Clarity and structured programmes are needed for our members in providing advice to our clients to enable them to make timely and detailed farm business decisions, which will also fit in with achieving our sectoral environmental targets.

Finally, the sixth question asked if additional resources are required to ensure the measures required by the nitrates action programme are adequately enforced. Farmers, in our view in the main, enjoy participating in targeted events with their peers, including training. Mandatory annual training for all farmers with a specific focus on improving water quality would act as a considerable help to farmers in dealing with current challenges. A resourced ACA office would work with State agencies and bodies to create consistent training and materials for members to impart to our farmers.

All ACA members must be regularly trained, as is available to those in the public advisory service annually. Furthermore, the tools that we use as advisers in the provision of services to derogation farmers, such as the nutrient management planning system, must be provided without direct cost to our members and farmer client, as it is in the best interest of the sector.

A higher number of inspections are scheduled for derogation farmers. It is critical that inspectors from the Department of agriculture and the local authority are consistent in their approach and that breaches of regulations are treated fairly and justly. A clear schedule of penalties must be applied, as currently they lack clarity and are not proportional to the breaches.

The ACA must be resourced to appoint a nitrates specialist within our network. With the ever-increasing pressure on advisers, such appointments would be of significant assistance in tailoring important information for our members to derogation farmers in our network from stakeholders such as the Department, Teagasc, the EPA, ASSAP, and other important actors. Similar appointments in the ACA network for other areas have been very successful in recent years, thanks to the support of the current Department of agriculture Ministers and their officials, and must be introduced to deal with all nitrates regulations and derogations.

I again thank the committee for the opportunity to present today.

Mr. Sean McNamara

I thank everyone for the opportunity to address the meeting. I will give answers to the questions that were sent.

The first question is: what are the anticipated economic effects for the agricultural sector that would result from a further decrease to the nitrates derogation? The effects can be categorised as follows. There is an impact on the profitability of farms that are dependent on derogation from the loss of output. There is also an impact on other farmers who lose rental land to derogation farmers who wish to maintain total output. This is a big problem for active cattle, sheep and tillage farmers who cannot compete with crazy land-rental prices. We need tillage to reduce dependency on imported feed and it is very difficult to operate suckler or dairy farms without straw at calving time. A decrease to 170 kg N/ha would undermine our grass-based system and the competitive advantage we have compared with our EU neighbours. The grass-fed beef protected geographical indication, PGI, is a recognition that grass-based farming is a traditional and valuable system of farming, which brings many benefits in terms of animal welfare, nutrition and better food for consumers. The overall impact will be to undermine our food exports, which were worth more than €16 billion in 2023.

The second question was what the anticipated social effects are for the agricultural sector that would result from a further decrease to the nitrates derogation. It is our view that the reduction from 250 kg N/ha to 220 kg N/ha has been difficult for farmers because plans have been derailed, and this is a source of frustration. A reduction to 170 kg N/ha would likely undermine the prospects for many young farmers who would question the economics of full-time farming. The point is that the social fabric of rural Ireland is certainly threatened by the lack of young people wanting to farm. More and more inspections, complex rules, penalties and poor prospects for viable farming will only make things worse.

The third question is whether it is possible to maintain Ireland’s nitrates derogation at its current level, while ensuring that there are improvements to Ireland’s water quality. It is difficult to make definite judgments on water quality improvements when we still see Uisce Éireann being fined for allowing polluting materials into water catchments after ten years of ownership of water schemes. There is also the challenge that the science is still evolving and farmers are struggling to keep up with changing advice. For example, farmers have invested billions in slurry storage over the past 20 years in line with the scientific advice. However, it is the case that climate patterns, especially rainfall, have led to questions about whether there is enough storage on farms. As it stands, the storage requirements vary from 16 to 22 weeks depending on what part of the country a farm is in. It looks like this is not enough but there are serious questions about how extra storage can be achieved on farms at a time when interest rates are no longer low, construction costs have rocketed and the TAMS system is broken. How can we expect low-income beef and suckler farmers to invest in additional storage when their income is not enough to cover repayments?

The ICSA believes that it is time for the Minister to take on board the recommendations of the agriculture water quality group to increase the rate of grant for slurry storage. A 70% grant was announced in the budget for tillage farms importing slurry. We think this should apply to all farms. It is far more practical, in most cases, to store the slurry where the animals are kept.

We must also question the advice that was being pushed only a few years ago that dairy expansion could be achieved using topless cubicles and stand-off pads. This, in our view, did nobody any favours, because it pushed people to run faster just to stand still and gave a false view of how cheaply milk could be produced. We must also look at the 2018 experience, where farmers were advised to spread chemical nitrogen after the long hot summer and this advice turned out to be a major mistake. It is unfair to blame farmers when the scientific research is not up to date.

However, on a positive note, there is huge commitment by farmers to do more. Fertiliser sales in 2023 are down 33% since 2021, which is very significant. There is also increased use of protected urea. Total nitrogen sales were down to 280,000 tonnes in 2023, beating the climate action plan target for 2030. Farmers have done a lot in reseeding with clover, but there are still gaps in knowledge about how to manage clover and the potential for excess nitrogen in the soil fixed from the atmosphere by clover. In conclusion, if Uisce Éireann could undertake as much work as farmers are doing at pace, then we could certainly see improvements in water quality. However, in our view, the EPA needs to put the same emphasis on Uisce Éireann as it has on farmers.

The fourth question is whether the nitrates action programme is fit for purpose in protecting Ireland’s water quality. In our view, farmers working with Teagasc and initiatives like the ASSAP, and the work being done by the agriculture water quality group, demonstrate huge commitment by the farming sector. The motivation is a commitment to the nitrates action plan and the retention of derogation. However, it must be said that many farmers are increasingly frustrated by more and more complexity and rules which are hard to keep up with, including the deadlines for slurry spreading, the new rules on soiled water, the new rules on trailing shoe, the new maximums on chemical fertiliser, the new fertiliser database, and the risk of overuse of the slurry ration, etc. There are so many rules people cannot keep with.

The fifth question is whether additional supports are required to ensure farmers can be compliant with the nitrates action programme. I will say again that farmers need a far higher grant rate if they are expected to invest in more slurry storage. They also need better research information delivered in a timely manner. In recent times, we are seeing that Teagasc is on a learning curve, which is fair enough, in relation to things such as how to deal with a drought, but it is not fair to expect farmers to know how to deal with adverse conditions when the advisory service is also struggling to cope.

The sixth question is whether additional resources are required to ensure the measures required by the nitrates action programme are immediately enforced. The ICSA is concerned that farmers are facing a massive increase in inspections at a time when the EU is talking about trying to substantially reduce inspections. It is hard for farmers to put up with local authorities quadrupling their inspection numbers when the local authorities had, for many years, a responsibility for water and sewage that was not fit for purpose. Even under Uisce Éireann, the rate of improvement is not good enough, despite the resources available to it. How can we expect farmers to achieve results at pace, when agencies with far more resources are still struggling?

How about penalties that are appropriate in scale for Uisce Eireann? I think farmers are very committed to improvement, but for many, the economics of investment do not stack up without better supports.

We will now go to members, who get ten minutes each. If people wish to come in a second time, they may do so.

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their helpful opening statements. I will start with the Agricultural Consultants Association. I thank its representatives for their detailed opening statement. It is good to have them here. They represent an important cohort of farmers that needs to be represented at meetings like this. It is great to have this organisation in front of us.

I will go through the presentation. They mentioned the important issue of minor breaches. Could they elaborate on what is happening? There is a situation where if a document is missing or a document is stuck in a printer and not going with the plan, a person could be thrown out of the scheme for up to two years, while if you are not a derogation farmer and you are caught spreading slurry, you get a 5% fine on your single farm payment. The knock-on implications for one is absolutely huge while the knock-on implications for another is a minor fine of some nature. Do the witnesses think it is a fair enforcement of the minor breaches they mentioned by the Department enforcing the regulations? The farmers I talk to are horrified at the thought of being thrown out of the scheme for two years for getting a piece of their plan stuck in their printer.

Mr. Noel Feeney

The Senator summarised that well. I will ask my colleague, Mr .Canning, who is dealing with many derogation clients, to explain the procedure and what is happening.

Mr. Tom Canning

I thank the Senator for the question. To explain, if there is a situation where there is missing information like this and the farmers is excluded from derogation, the penalty is exclusion for two years. We have heard the instances the Senator has heard about of missing soil samples and pages sticking together and those farmers being excluded. The penalty, depending on how heavily or greatly the farmer exceeds his derogation limit, can be between 5% and 20%. The problem is that if they do not get below the 170 kg N/ha limit in the second year, the penalties are trebled. There is a huge financial implication for very simple mistakes. We have had instances where guys have been kicked out of derogation because there was excess poaching with round feeders being used in certain fields. If a farmer is not in derogation, the likely penalty is between 1% and 5%. For a derogation farmer, it is a kick-out of the derogation, as the Senator correctly said, not for a one-year period but two years and the trebling of the penalty in the second year. A very important point is that if your penalties are trebled and they exceed 50%, no support payments are paid in the second year. They average support payments in Ireland are around €15,000. The penalties have to fit the crime.

I think that is a point the committee will take on board when doing the report. I do not think the penalties imposed are appropriate and it is a serious issue.

Mr. Tom Canning

The present penalty system we operate on dates back as far as 2011. There is no clarity with regard to the level of penalties and there is no banding of penalties depending on the crime.

That is a huge issue for the farming community.

Mr. Breian Carroll

I think our members are just looking for a bit of tolerance. Everybody can make human errors. There are cases where our people represented farmers who, for example, uploaded the wrong document in the wrong year. These incidents happen. We are looking at cases like that where our members, on behalf of their farmers, are given ten or 14 working days to rectify that issue. If they do not engage with the Department at that stage, that is their problem along with their customer. There should be a level of tolerance to understand that it could be properly enforced on the ground even if a small incident like that, where the wrong year was put, something was forgotten about or a different genuine error like that could happen and it is still in the adviser’s office. In those cases, our members need to have flexibility to intervene on behalf of the farmer.

Dealing with that section of the Department, do the witnesses find it hard to contact it at times about these issues to get clarity?

Mr. Breian Carroll

In fairness, we understand the amount of regulations that have to be enforced is difficult for the Department people also. However, every party needs to be able to work together to rectify it. There are no winners out of this. It is an administrative error that can be corrected in many other parts of our society. We are just looking for that tolerance to ensure that since it is still all in order, the farmer and the adviser on their behalf gets the opportunity to rectify it.

I thank Mr. Carroll. Forgive me as I am on the clock.

It is great to have Mr. Carr in front of us.

The Senator does not often pay much heed to it but go on.

The Chair is very tough on me on time so I will have to be quick. I thank Mr. Carr for his helpful opening statement. I ask about the co-operative movement and where it is fixing this issue. There was criticism towards them in respect of this debate in the past 18 months that they were not as vocal as they should have been regarding the nitrates. They have probably come out in front now but they have been quiet enough about the debate about trying to make sure we keep the derogation.

I ask about the viability of our co-operative movement going forward if there is to be a continuous drop in the milk supply like we have seen in the past few years. I ask about the major expansion mentioned in the opening statement. How much has been put into stainless steel? Some has been paid by the farming community. Is Mr. Carr fearful about the economics of this going forward if we were to lose our derogation? Is our co-operative movement on a firm footing? Do we have significant borrowings when it comes to a milk supply that might not come because of a potential loss in milk supply if we are to lose this derogation? We have 59 milk plants in Ireland. It is a significant employer throughout Ireland in many rural towns such as Charleville, Mitchelstown and Ballineen. Is there a fear that without the derogation, these plants could become unviable and there could be a rationalisation plan put in place for the co-operative movement?

Mr. Edward Carr

I thank the Senator for his question. There is no doubt about it. No more than at farm level, the viability of the whole sector is at risk, from the family farm right through to the co-operative. We must remember that the co-operative movement is built on the back of farmers. We are the shareholders, we own these businesses, we own these farms and we were the ones who invested in these farms big time for generations. We did not talk about it since the abolition of quotas. For generations, farmers built these co-ops through their own investment. They put their hands in their pockets to put them in every rural parish, every rural village and every county all over the country. They built these little organisations. Some have grown into global businesses, which we are very proud of. Of course they are at stake with the future of the derogation and where it stands today.

We have all faced challenges all along the way. There is no better people than the farming community when there is a challenge put to them. That is why we are laying down the challenge today to the Government and the EU that we are prepared to change. We cannot continue. Every good industry changes over time and we cannot continue. We are prepared to make that change at farm level and co-operative level. We will do anything that is asked of us to protect our future, the viability of our family farms and the viability of the co-operative movement. Everybody needs to work together; we cannot do it on our own.

We know that changes have to be made for the environment and for water quality, and they have been made. That is where we have a big qualm. Farmers have made massive changes. Even since the abolition of quotas, we have all grown our business and we all enjoyed that journey. However, at the same time, we made massive changes over the past three or four years that have to be given time to work through. There is no point in pulling the rug from under an industry in the middle of that change. We have been asked to change and we have changed. Give that change time to work through the system. I have no doubt that if water quality does not improve in the next few years, it will not be because of dairy or any other type of farming rather there will be other issues at play. I will hand over to Mr. Farrell, if he wishes to add to this.

Mr. Eamonn Farrell

Dairy co-ops have been heavily resourcing sustainability at farm level and we have not been quiet in that regard.

We have invested significantly in the ASSAP. The resource in this regard has trebled. There were nine advisers initially and their number has risen to 23. A range of co-operative sustainability programmes are now being developed and water quality is the key component of all of them.

Is Mr. Farrell happy that the majority, if not all, of the co-operatives and entities involved in milk are moving in that line, such that they will all result in the same activity on the farms? Some are doing more than others. Is there a list of what co-operatives are doing regarding advisers?

Mr. Eamonn Farrell

In the annexe to the submission we provided to the committee, there is a list of the five main processors that have a dedicated sustainability programme that incentivises through milk payments. As we speak, other co-operatives are developing these same programmes. Therefore, all co-operatives are moving in the same direction.

What about boots on the ground on the part of the co-operative movement?

Mr. Eamonn Farrell

All co-ops have the advisers. The number ranges from six to maybe one, depending on the size of the entity, but all the co-ops have ASSAP advisers employed. They all have joint programmes in place with Teagasc as well. The sustainable dairy assurance scheme, SDAS, is funded through the co-operatives and that has been in place since 2013. There is, therefore, a range of sustainability measures to help farmers.

I wish to ask Mr. McNamara about the tillage industry, in particular. The expansion of the dairy herd has had a huge impact on the industry. Conacre prices have gone through the roof and there have been major sustainability issues. Where is the industry going? I am talking about purchasing and renting land. Straw is important in the system. Is the straw incorporation scheme appropriate going forward?

We had a discussion last week on cover crops. One set of witnesses said cover crops did not work and they should be moved away from because they are not promoting wildlife. What is the position of the tillage industry, in particular, on this issue?

Mr. Sean McNamara

The biggest problem in the tillage industry is the conacre price. It is hard to compete against dairy farmers. In my line of business, namely suckler farming and sheep, straw is very important. Around me, it is now €35 per round bale, if it can be got. In fairness, there is a major welfare issue concerning suckler farmers. They cannot get straw to bed their cows and calves. If the weather is good, there is some chance of putting a cow out to feed it. However, the weather is so bad now that you can let out nothing. There is nothing but muck and dirt everywhere so there is a big welfare issue.

Many of the smaller tillage men are going out of business completely because they cannot compete given the cost of producing crops. The bigger operators are probably getting a little bigger, but many small operators are moving out of tillage altogether. I see this in my part of the country. Something seriously needs to be done about the sector.

I welcome the representatives. There are many recurring themes in their submissions and those of previous representatives. Therefore, there is commonality. Of course, there would be and that is understandable.

Water quality is a national issue. It is the responsibility of all stakeholders and users of water to maintain it and empower all involved. That is a crystal-clear message we need to get out. We are not seeking to make a case that farmers are dragging their heels. I am satisfied that they are pulling their weight.

I want to address Mr. Carr of ICOS first. I acknowledge the great success of his organisation. I remind people at this meeting that ICOS is a body that nominates to the Seanad agricultural panel. I encourage it to use that panel. It is a nominating body and it has people through a process. It is important that it put the lever on everybody because that is what it is about. ICOS is representing members and it uses its nominating process well. Some of the nominees are sitting in the Seanad. That is an important point for ICOS members. I acknowledge that ICOS plays a full part and I am very familiar with its operations and work. Mr. Carr was right about how small co-operatives grew, expanded and became very successful; well done. I also acknowledge that ICOS heavily resources sustainability measures through various programmes. That is very much part of its message, as Mr. Farrell said.

ICOS has called in its submission for the Government to establish an interdepartmental task force, chaired by the Taoiseach, that would properly assess the economic and social implications of further reductions to the nitrates derogation. I fully support that. I believe ICOS is right about this. When I read representatives’ papers, I go straight to what their organisations are asking for. ICOS is calling for a task force that should include the Departments of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Rural and Community Development. That all makes sense. Mr. Carr might share briefly with me how the campaign in this regard is going. What is ICOS doing and how does it envisage the campaign progressing? I fully endorse and support it.

ICOS is very concerned about the reduction of the derogation. Its statement refers to the ramifications for the viability of rural-based businesses such as the co-operative agri-retail stores. We talk here about balanced regional development and sustainable rural communities. These all overlap, and rightly so. Mr. Carr might touch on these two issues before I ask questions to the representatives of the other two groups.

Mr. Edward Carr

On the first question, on our request that a special task force be set up, the reason is quite simple.

I agree with Mr. Carr on the reason. I am asking how ICOS is progressing with its campaign.

Mr. Edward Carr

We are bringing it to the attention of the committee today. It is a step on a long journey. We are asking for such a strong task force to be set up because I do not believe people realise the importance of the matter to the rural economy and rural areas. As I travelled here today up through the countryside from County Tipperary, I noted there is only one thing left in rural Ireland, namely agriculture or farming. It is time for the Government and everyone involved to come together. They did so some years ago when Brexit was to affect our country. This issue we are discussing is equally important. It is one of the most important issues facing rural Ireland and, therefore, it is time that the Government stepped up to the mark and everyone came together. We will play our part in that and I am sure everyone else is willing to play theirs. That is our ask. Mr. Matthews will elaborate on the agri-retail stores.

What are the challenges related to the agri-retail stores?

Mr. Niall Matthews

Many co-operatives have agri-stores in their portfolios. It is estimated that 50% to 60% of the milk produced in Ireland comes from derogation farms. KPMG conducted an analysis showing that if the derogation were lost and the stocking rate were reduced to 170 kg N/ha, it would mean an 18% reduction in stock numbers. Obviously, that will have a big knock-on effect on the demand for imports into agriculture. Generally, the co-operatives are large turnover businesses but they work on very small margins – maybe 1% to 2% – in terms of net profit. They are a little vulnerable. If the derogation is lost and the stocking rate is reduced, the turnover will be greatly reduced and profits may be wiped out. It is essential to keep the businesses viable and keep the retail stores economical and open.

I fully agree. I shall now turn to Mr. Feeney from ACA. The fast-tracking of planning is a recurring theme. Mr. Feeney might touch on fast-tracked planning and TAMS applications for slurry storage on farms. The VAT reclaim facility he talked about makes absolute sense.

How is the ACA running its campaign in conjunction with other farm organisations to drive the importance of this? It makes total sense. I am here to tease out and pull out the issues because I am conscious that this is a public forum and public meeting. Other policymakers and farm organisations are listening in. I ask the representatives to briefly touch on those two issues.

Mr. Noel Feeney

The Senator alluded to two very important factors going forward. I will ask Mr. Canning to give a response to that.

Mr. Tom Canning

On TAMS applications, the first tranche of TAMS closed on 30 June 2023. As it stands, approximately 80% of those applications have been processed. A number of farmers currently have a shortfall in slurry storage and are going through the planning process at present, which takes a minimum of up to three months. The TAMS application system is currently logjammed. It really is. We are seeing serious delays of six, seven or eight months for critical slurry storage facilities on farms to address capacity shortfalls where they may happen. The future is very worrying, if we do not address this issue of TAMS support. It is all right talking about 70% grant aid, but if it takes six, 12 or 18 months to secure that grant aid, then we are really barking up the wrong tree.

The excretion rates for dairy cows are currently under review by Teagasc. Farmers who currently have a shortfall in slurry storage capacity on their farms do not qualify for TAMS support. If we bring in this new regulation, where we will increase the excretion rate from 0.33 cu. m up to 0.4 cu. m for a dairy cow, I estimated that just to deal with that increase for an 85-cow herd, it will cost a farmer somewhere in the region of €25,000 plus VAT, in addition to 180 cu. m of additional slurry storage on a farm. We are then logjamming the system.

We have the point. What about VAT?

Mr. Tom Canning

There is huge uncertainty on the VAT issue at the moment. Revenue has started to more strictly apply what it states are the existing regulations on VAT. It states that people cannot qualify for VAT reclaim on items that are not fixed investments, such as milking parlours and milk tanks. Are these really and truly not fixed investments? That raises the question about where the next phase of this will go and what will be disregarded for VAT reclaims in the future. When that level of uncertainty is hanging over farmers, are they inclined to invest in much-needed facilities on their farms? I doubt it.

I will turn to the ICSA and Mr. McNamara. What is very important, and it was highlighted in the ICSA submission, is that total nitrogen sales went down to 280,000 tonnes in 2023, which beat the climate action plan targets for 2030. That is a profound statement. It is very interesting. It is a fact; I checked it today. According to the ICSA, "Total nitrogen sales were down to 280,000 tonnes in 2023, beating the climate action plan target for 2030." That was an important point Mr. McNamara drove home. I thank him for that.

Mr. McNamara talked about farmers doing a lot on reseeding with clover, but there are still knowledge gaps in the process about how clover is managed and the potential in terms of excess nitrogen. He identified a need for knowledge and additional training. Will he touch on that? What is the ICSA proposing? What does it want to see? How does it see us overcoming that? What is the ask of the committee from Mr. McNamara and his organisation to address that issue that was highlighted?

Mr. Sean McNamara

Will Mr. Punch explain-----

I fully understand the issue. I am asking what the ICSA is proposing for how we address it.

Mr. Eddie Punch

I thank the Senator. We have to have more assistance to farmers to cope with all the knowledge they are trying to take in. It is fair to say that farmers have done a lot, but the scientific research is not necessarily as far ahead as it should be. We have to acknowledge that. We have to make sure that farmers are assisted to learn how to manage clover, for example. Clover is for certain a help in reducing the amount of chemical nitrogen purchased but may not be the panacea for excess nitrogen in sandy soils in particular. We have to go back. What I am keen to get across is that farmers are doing an awful lot but they are being asked to do more and more and, sometimes, the help and advice is not fast enough for them.

To be fair to our colleagues in the consultancy sector, consultants are snowed under with work. I have the nitrates handbook that farmers are meant to assimilate. It is 57 pages long. It provides four different slurry and nitrogen spreading dates and four different minimum slurry storage periods for farms, which are perhaps out of date. It provides for new rules that changed from 2022 to 2024 regarding who has to spread by trail shoe or not. We have seen the introduction of banding for cows. Sometimes, farm organisations go along with reducing or changing the rules around banding, for example, because it helps some farmers to get in under the wire in terms of nitrates, but it is adding complexity. The reality is that it is very hard for any individual farmer to digest everything in the nitrates handbook because some of the people who are experts are struggling to keep up with it. The fact is that the experts in consultancy and in Teagasc are snowed under trying to help farmers comply with the ever-changing rules. They are changing every day.

What are we talking about here? It is important, in a public forum, for people to understand that there are now two types of farmers in this country. There is the full-time dairy farmer and large-scale beef or tillage farmer. Those people are snowed under and running faster just to stand still. They are worked to the bone trying to do calving at this time of year and they have all this kind of stuff changing. There is then the part-time farmer who is flat out trying to work an off-farm job while doing on-farm work by night. The more and more we are getting regulation after regulation to try to comply with these demands, the harder it is. I am very concerned that people will burst at some stage and say, "We have had enough of this." We have to look at the fact that the EPA has been very strong on what farmers should do and what they are failing to do, but we see Uisce Éireann getting ten years to sort out the water problems. That still has not got to where it needs to be, even though Uisce Éireann has lots of money and lots of professional staff. Farm families do not have that. They depend on their advisers but those advisers are flat out trying to cope with all this stuff under nitrates.

We then get the lack of fair play for farmers. I mentioned previously at the committee, and I will reference it again, a farmer who got a penalty through a letter dated February 2024 relating to an inspection in 2019 under statutory management requirement, SMR, 1, which is about nitrates. The penalty arose because of the mix between how much cattle ration was fed at grass, how much nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, NPK, was spread, and what the index for that soil was at that farm. Those were three moving parts, which were all complicated and all required an adviser to help. The farmer was treated as badly as to be told nothing for four years but then a penalty was applied in 2023. The trebling of penalties was mentioned. If a farmer is wrong in 2019 but is not told about it in fair time, which, in our view, is pretty much as soon as possible after the event, he or she may well make the same error in 2021, 2022 or 2023. If a farmer is only told about it in 2024, that farmer could have a trebling of penalties. This is what farmers are up against. All we are saying is there has to be fair play and some recognition that if we want farmers to do all this stuff, we either massively increase the support available for Teagasc or else we say we have to slow down with the regulation.

I thank the witnesses for their opening statements and very detailed submissions. I will address the Agricultural Consultants Association first. It is interesting that the ACA provides support services to more than 55,000 farmers. I imagine this must be the majority of farmers who have advisers. It is important that the association is here because I imagine its advisers are put in a very difficult position regarding certainty on the derogation and the way in which every few years we have to wait to see if it will change or remain the same. The ACA's advisers are the ones who farmers are looking to for advice. When it is so uncertain I presume it is very difficult to advise farmers. I ask the witnesses to speak about the difficulty with how the derogation works.

The ACA has also been on the front line regarding the submission of applications to TAMS. Fast-tracking of planning is mentioned in the association's opening statement. Objections to planning are an issue as well. If there was a process by which the TAMS application could be sped up, would that be enough in itself to do what needs to be done?

The current derogation IT system was also mentioned as being in need of a complete overhaul. I ask the witnesses to expand on that point. Regarding the ASSAP, reference is made to the fact that it needs to embrace the ACA. I ask them to expand on that too.

Mr. Noel Feeney

On the Deputy's first question, yes, we are dealing with more than 55,000 farmers, which means a huge number of farms. Over the years, our membership base has spread all over the country. We are proud of the fact that we give a very good, efficient and quick service to these farmers. That has been shown in recent years by the vast number of schemes that have been put through. We have got farmers and their families over the line regarding applications and so on.

ACA advisers are, as Senator Lombard mentioned, boots on the ground. We have boots on the ground and we find it very important to go to the farm families and advise them at their desks, whether that is the farmer, the farmer's spouse or young successors coming along. That is where we find we have an edge. We are doing a lot of work with farm families. In turn, the trust between the ACA adviser has built up over many years. I will ask Mr. Canning to address the TAMS issue.

Mr. Tom Canning

There are complications regarding planning and we fully realise that. This is particularly the case where the area in question is close to protected areas. People can leave themselves open to claims but we have appropriate assessment reports going in with planning applications to try to speed up the process.

Regarding water quality, we are looking at adherence to the closed period. Slurry storage is an absolute requirement here. Trying to support this is crucial and speeding it through the planning process and giving it priority through the TAMS system are essential. Trying to get those applications across the line is one of the biggest issues we face at the moment.

Regarding the 70% support, and the question of whether speeding up the planning on its own is enough, the reality is that while TAMS costings were improved dramatically from TAMS 2 to TAMS 3, they are still not in line with the real costs of materials. In effect, the current 40% or 60% grant aid being provided to farmers is ending up at 25%, 30% or 45%. A close look needs to be taken at index-linking, so to speak, the costings. The 70% support is essential, particularly for the development of slurry storage facilities on outlying parcels of ground so that slurry is spread on them, which takes pressure off the grazing platforms on dairy farms. We have also argued, as ICOS argued earlier, that where farmers are considered not to be nitrate-compliant and not to have sufficient slurry storage on their farm, they should be given an allowance. Say, for example, a farmer is 100 cu. m short and meets that 100 cu. m but also develops an additional 300 cu. m of slurry storage on top of that to future-proof the business. That 300 m³ should be eligible for 70% support. These are very practical targets. One of the biggest problems we have is slurry spreading over the closed period. Because the nutrients are not absorbed by the growing crop, it is not growing and taking up the nutrients. The EPA recognises that as the greatest risk. We need to address that by improving the slurry storage facilities and future-proofing it as well in terms of what Teagasc is promoting. The indications are that we are looking at increasing excretion rates as well. All of these measures are needed to future-proof our business.

Mr. Breian Carroll

According to the national record, there are approximately 137,000 farmers in Ireland, of whom some 43,000 are with Teagasc. Figures from the Department estimate there are 55,000 farmers with our association. We must not forget that there are another 30,000 quota farmers who are outside having a direct influence from an adviser.

I will make one comment on the TAMS. In the previous TAMS it was extremely helpful when we went out to farms that we knew 12 months in advance what the deadlines were for TAMS. We have asked for that information again and we are hopeful it can be given very soon. If I go to a farmer next week to provide that service, we know there is a deadline in April, but we would like to know at this stage what the deadlines will be in 2025. When we are talking to a farmer we know how to get around the dates for planning and the targets we need to hit on TAMS over the next 12 months. That is critically important. We knew that with TAMS 2 and was extremely helpful.

On ASSAP, we have some members who have a large proportion of farmers in the programme in the catchment areas. They do not understand the objectives of ASSAP because they were not asked or informed about what the objectives are in this catchment area. We have a substantial number of clients in those areas. There needs to be a holistic approach taken by everybody to tackle the issue of water quality. We cannot go to one farm and skip another. There needs to be a complete understanding by all the farmers in the catchment area and we need to work with the private advisory service that has customers in that area, along with everybody else. There also needs to be consistent messaging. If I or my members are going out to advise farmers, the messages about the objectives for the ASSAP programme need to be the same. It is critical for the collaboration that everybody in the area is pulling together to meet those targets.

My last comment is on the IT issue. Our association would love IT funding to be trebled in order to improve the systems we work on. To go back to what Senator Lombard said, tolerance is just as important for us. The systems are easy to work and navigate. However, if there is a clerical error, as I said earlier, it is important that we get an opportunity, on behalf of the customer, to rectify it. It is not a big ask. Other sectors in society get ten or 14 days. It is important that we have the same opportunity.

ICOS and the ICSA both mentioned generational renewal. We are looking at a body of work to examine the economic and social impact of any further change to the derogation. Part and parcel of this is the next generation and the uncertainty that exists with the derogation. While grants and support exist, why would a farmer spend thousands more than they already have spent when it is not clear whether the derogation will remain as it is or there will be further reductions? I ask both groups to expand a little on generational renewal.

Regarding the wider impacts, this is not just an issue for dairy farmers. The witnesses have also spoken about tillage, but beyond that, I ask them to comment on the wider impact for livestock farmers, for example.

Mr. Eddie Punch

There is a real concern here about what rural Ireland will look like in the future. A few years ago, we did not spend enough time having a big-picture view of how we get the balance right between dairy, tillage and livestock enterprises. All of this regulation being driven from Brussels and accepted in Dublin is making it harder and harder for the family farm model to survive. There is a need for lots of complicated advice, which means a farmer renting 30 or 40 acres will probably get blown out of the water as a livestock farmer.

We are asking dairy farmers to run harder in order to stand still. There was a time not so long ago 60 cows was a viable living. Now it is 120 cows but where does this all end? I am concerned about - and I had a friend in Australia during the winter - what social life looks like in rural Australia. Yes, farms are big and that is fine but is it really a life people want to live in Ireland where neighbours are a mile or two miles away? We have to try to get that balance right.

Part of that is saying we need to be careful that if, for example, we reduced to 170 kg N/ha the consequence is not to blow all of the medium and smaller scale cattle and sheep farmers out of the water. The consequence is not to say we only have a handful of tillage farmers who are on a very large scale. The consequence is that we are not down to farms of 300 or 400 cows only. Then there is the labour question and how we solve that. Then the young people who are farming those 300 or 400 cows notice they do not have neighbours anymore and that maybe it is not that good of a life after all. We have to get the balance between all of those things correct.

We mentioned the need for extra slurry storage earlier. That is a consequence of changing weather patterns to some considerable extent. We saw it this year with winter starting in September-October. Farmers spent a lot of money on slurry storage back as far as 2007 and 2008 and ever since but they are being asked to do more now. We now have a scenario where bank interest rates have gone up considerably in the past two years as a consequence of circumstances beyond our control. They are probably printing too much money. Farmers cannot really be advised to borrow money now - and some of them will not get the loans anyway - to expand their slurry storage when the banks know they could be waiting for two years to get a TAMS grant and when they know it is capped and not accurate in terms of the costings because the cost of construction is unpredictable and going up.

We have to try to get those things right and that is why the ICSA is saying we have to have a higher grant rate, particularly for cattle and sheep farmers who cannot afford to pay for extra slurry storage. Ultimately when we look at what our farmers do that could be improved on, there is a lot of talk about people spreading slurry during the closed season but that is primarily a consequence of unpredictable weather. We all know a few people who are not perfect but for a with lot of farmers, it is down to factors beyond their control. If they had more slurry storage, they would be okay but it is costing them too much to do it. They are young people and their kids are not clear about where they are going in farming and probably saying, maybe not, and we have to get all that right.

Mr. Edward Carr

I thank the Deputy for her question. The whole area of generation renewal is a big concern. However the main concern is the word "uncertainty". There is a generation of farmers out there who want to farm. There is no doubt about that. I am not just talking about dairy farming it is in all aspects and all enterprises that are willing to do it. It is the uncertainty. That is why clarity has to come into this very quickly because farmers are expected to increase their slurry storage and to further invest in their businesses but they do not know the end game. They do not know where it will lead them. Will they have a business in a few years? That uncertainty is why the Government needs to start collaborating very quickly with its colleagues in the EU and make a decision on the nitrates derogation. We have a generation of farmers who are very willing, well educated and ready to take up the mantle of the generation before them and it would be a pity to lose them because of this. I will ask my colleague Mr. Matthews to give a few examples of what has happened even since the reduction of 250 kg N/ha to 220 kg N/ha and the size of farms that have been affected.

Mr. Niall Matthews

There is probably a narrative out there that the nitrates derogation is being used by very large-scale dairy farmers who may be milking 300 or 400 cows. The reality is that 40% of derogation farmers over 220 kg N/ha are farming less than 40 ha of land. Taking a mid-point of a 30 ha farm, when they were farming at up to 250 kg N/ha, they could have carried 80 to 90 dairy cows which was a reasonably viable family farm unit. If that stocking rate was reduced to 170 kg N/ha, they would be looking at a maximum of 60 cows. At that stage that farm will become very borderline viable. If we want to encourage the next generation to consider taking up that farm, they will have to be allowed to farm at a level that will give them a viable living.

Mr. Eamonn Farrell

ICOS's submission proposed that the Government should consider the climate and nature fund that was announced in the budget last October. While the detail was not known as to what the budget could be used for, as explained today a large part of the reason slurry storage is coming to the fore is due to climate reasons and it would be fully justifiable to utilise that fund for that purpose.

I thank the witnesses for their comprehensive statements and recommendations. I have a few quick questions for the Agricultural Consultants Association. It said that even if all farmers fully complied with all of the current regulations scientific experts recognise, it could take up to ten years to see significant improvements in water quality. What extra steps does ACA think are needed to be taken by the agricultural and other sectors to speed up the improvements in the water quality? Is the Government taking enough steps in this direction as well?

On the ASSAP, the ACA said it is willing to embrace and assist with the programme. Has it had direct contact with the Minister and the Department about this and what response did it get?

With regard to the appointment of nitrates specialists, does ACA think they are needed? What funding and money is needed to recruit nitrates specialists within its network?

When ICOS said the Government and EU must recognise the range of new actions to be undertaken and that they will take time to implement, what timeframe does it envisage? When ICOS said a compelling case is needed for the European Commission, does it believe that the Minister and Department are putting forward such a case?

Mr. Tom Canning

I will just refer back to Deputy Kerrane's question with regard to involvement. We need to put this in perspective. As we said, water quality is a national issue. There are two significant positives we have to take here. First, Ireland's water quality is in the top three or four countries in Europe. That is hugely positive.

Second, as my colleagues said, between ourselves and our colleagues in Teagasc, there are 125,000 active farmers who submit basic income support for sustainability, BISS, applications each year. Of those we are dealing with 55,000 and our counterparts in Teagasc with 43,000. We have active engagement with 98,000 farmers. We are an army in waiting. I have been in the advisory business for more than 34 years but do I feel engaged with it? No. I have been excluded from the ASSAP and from the signpost programme and more than likely I will be excluded from the new European innovation partnership, EIP, on water quality. I feel angry about that because I have been dealing with derogation farmers on a consistent basis for a very long number of years.

With regard to the current regulations, as Mr. Feeney alluded to, there are 39 regulations on top of good agricultural and environmental condition, GAEC, applying to a derogation farm in Ireland. There are 7,000 farmers in derogation plus 6,000 exporting slurry. There are only 13,000 of the 125,000 farmers - just over 10% of farmers - who are really affected by the overall nitrate limit of 170 kg N/ha. Hoping to achieve water quality improvements overnight by simply taking away derogation from these guys is a myth. It is misinformation. It needs time for the existing regulations to work. The regulations have really confused and frustrated farmers and I see a growing anger among the people I deal with. We need to go back with a very simple message to our guys. We have outlined it in the document we presented to the committee.

The first point is respect for and adherence to the closed period for the application of organic manures, which ties in with TAMS support and fast-tracking of planning applications.

The second point is the responsible application of organic and inorganic manures and fertilisers. I will provide a perfect example. The other day, I inspected a derogation farm that observed a 2 m exclusion area - the farmer had fenced off his watercourse and had no drinking points on it - and applied a buffer margin when applying slurry. On the other side was a farmer in his late 70s with eight cattle on a 25-acre farm using a round feeder and two of them standing in the exact same drain they were drinking out of. Does that make sense? My man was throwing up his hands in frustration asking what was going on.

The third point is the effective use of chemical fertilisers. We use Teagasc’s nutrient management planning system, which is critical for water quality and providing advice to our farmers. It has been supported through the introduction of the new fertiliser database. Along with the cost of fertiliser, the database has focused farmers’ attention on the efficient and effective use of fertilisers.

We have simplified this message into a single-page recommendation, with colour-coded maps that the farmer can use. There is a clear guideline. Let us make this message simple.

In terms of involving us in this process as a private adviser, we have the recipe, that being, the ACRES format of training for farmers. We are calling for mandatory training for farmers with a stocking rate of over 130 kg N/ha. Bring them in, explain to them the sense behind these mitigation measures, and then bring them to a farm and show the measures working in plain and simple terms. That could make a significant contribution and bring this army in waiting that we have in our members along with us now that we have effective communication with our farmers, not over-regulating them and engaging in knee-jerk reactions to water quality reports.

Mr. Breian Carroll

I will answer the other questions. It must be acknowledged that, for the first time ever for our association, the Department and Minister have funded organic specialists. We also received support for an agri-environmental specialist before Christmas. This has been successful and is bringing links with other State agencies and within our own network to members on the ground and on to farmers, mirroring what is in the public sector, albeit at a smaller scale for the time being.

We have no figures on what the Deputy asked about, but we intend to make a submission on the matter soon. We will probably need two specialists – one to cover each half of the country – as a start. They could be incorporated into some of the objectives and programmes, be the association’s representatives in those important forums and bring information back to our network and out to farmers. A link needs to be found.

We have also sought some level of support for our office to act as a conduit to farmers. I will provide an example. Currently, our association is run by me and two others working part-time, but our network covers 55,000 farmers and 210 members. All we are asking for is a bit of support. In fairness to the Government, that has happened and has been successful. Given the topic under discussion, though, it is important that everyone in the sector get this correct. The Government would be pushing on an open door by supporting our association in getting the message out to our members and farmers.

Mr. Noel Feeney

I will clear up some matters. Those were fantastic questions to ask of us. We are a private advisory service all over the country. This message must go out loud and clear – we are underutilised and underfunded. We can achieve a great deal. We have done so on the other schemes and delivered for the Department of agriculture.

We will speak to the derogation, though.

Mr. Noel Feeney

It is important that that message go out loud and clear.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Eamonn Farrell

I will respond on the timeframe and the compelling case. When it was introduced, the fifth nitrates action programme included a range of new measures, such as banding the changes to soil water, changes to the closed period for fertiliser and organic manure and changes to the chemical fertiliser allowances. What is deeply frustrating is that none of these measures was given the appropriate time to be implemented before the reduction from 250 kg N/ha to 170 kg N/ha came into being. The timeframe for the adoption of measures can vary depending on factors such as soil type, weather, hydromorphology and farm management practices. It is about adopting the right measure in the right place depending on the soil type. We suggest that, on a catchment-by-catchment basis, a full assessment be done as to what the appropriate measures would be in each catchment and what impact the time horizon for those would have. The MACC maps out the extent to which greenhouse gases could be reduced by each measure. A similar case should be prepared in advance of the next negotiations with the European Commission to fully arm our State. In the previous negotiations, the four criteria that were established for the reduction from 250 kg N/ha to 220 kg N/ha were deeply unfair. For example, the one-year trend was not based on science. Another example was the at risk of eutrophication status. Those were bars we could not meet. Fairness is needed. If fairness is brought into the negotiations, we can secure the derogation. As has been mentioned, farmers have reduced fertiliser usage significantly, total livestock numbers have declined and the growth in dairy numbers has decelerated, being less than 1% last year. In the previous negotiations, the European Commission raised the issues of increasing cow numbers and increasing fertiliser usage, so the changes that have happened need to be recognised in the next round of negotiations.

I thank the witnesses for attending. Mr. McNamara has taken the helm, and I wish him the best of luck. I also wish good luck to Mr. Feeney in leading the ACA.

Senators Lombard and Daly, Deputy Cahill and I went out to Europe. To say that we got a frosty reception was an understatement. With every Commissioner we met, all we heard about was the environment. It was not about cattle or sheep. This was a problem everywhere we went. The reality, as the Commissioners told us clearly, was that they were going to negotiate the new CAP and, as per usual, they said nearly every problem was for the member states to deal with. Our witnesses are going to Europe as well. Are they getting the same feedback?

If something is going to happen to farmers in three, four or five years’ time, the one thing we need to do is be honest. There has been fudging over the past six months. In fairness, the Minister said it straight out on day 1, but politics came into play and there were promises of this, that and the other. Twitter was flying, even Senator Lombard’s.

You would not have been able for it.

Thank God I do not do it.

You just read mine.

Stop. Behave.

The one thing we found when we went out to Europe was that there was a major pushback against agriculture, against people producing food. We sent over the perfect bullet to shoot us with. That is the totality of what the EPA went over with. As Mr. Canning stated, no one talks about the glass being half full, though, and more than 50% of our water is of a very high or good standard. In the witnesses’ views, and if they are to be honest with farmers, are they hearing the same message in Europe that we heard?

We will start with the representatives from ICOS.

Mr. Edward Carr

In recent times, many mixed messages have been coming but our job is to put our case forward. We would question some of the decisions that are being made. Are they based on facts? As highlighted in our document, there is a compelling case here that, as one of the most efficient producers of food in the world, we are being compared to others. We are the only country in Europe that is going to have a derogation finishing up. Who else is entitled to one? The message has to be put across that the system we have in this country for producing food is the most efficient. Why not let us continue to produce it in a sustainable manner? That is the message that we as an organisation bring. It is one we want to bring to the Government and take across to the European Commission to try to reinforce our case. We were talking about science. The science has proven the point that our claims are true and accurate. There is extra work to be done; I have no doubt about that. As I said, farmers will embrace the extra effort. However, as a broad-line agricultural enterprise, we have the basis to produce food in the most sustainable manner possible anywhere in the world. Our feeling as an organisation is that this has to be identified and partnered with for us to continue to do that.

Mr. Tom Canning

I thank Deputy Fitzmaurice for the question. The exact point he made is one of the most frustrating things for farmers and it is really angering them. It is the uncertainty that all of these changes in regulations are bringing about. I am seriously concerned about our ability to hold on to the 220 kg N/ha limit. We can look at the four metrics that were used to assess water quality in 2022 and at the area of Ireland that failed those metrics. As I said, we had one derogation farmer in Leitrim who is often mentioned. He is a client of mine and he is actually out of derogation. Looking at the four metrics, it was virtually impossible to achieve them. We are going to measure water quality in 2024. On 23 November last, at the meeting I attended, the Commissioner stated that stabilisation was needed as regards water quality in Ireland if the country was to retain its derogation. He said the ball was now in our court, we had to address the issue and we had to think outside the box. The Commission, he said, had made its proposals and it was thinking outside the box. We have to support the farmers who are not nitrate compliant or do not have sufficient slurry storage. We need education of farmers and integration. We need a mindset change among our farmers to achieve water quality but we need a period of time in which to do it.

I listened to the comments on the success of ASSAP. I also listened to Mary Roche and a behavioural specialist who spoke at the Teagasc water quality conference a fortnight ago. They said we would get a good uptake of effective mitigation measures if there was interaction and trust with the adviser. This is critical. We are on the ground. We are experienced professionals. With 34 years' experience in this business, I have a fair idea of what I am talking about when it comes to water quality. If I can get engagement with those farmers, we are more likely to see a sea change, management practice changes on the farms, better application to slurry and chemical fertilisers and an improvement in our water quality overall. However, we need time to do it. I question whether we will be able to retain the derogation in two years. If it is to be decided on the basis of water quality improvements in the next two years, I am very fearful about whether we will retain the derogation. That is the uncertainty that is disillusioning our farmers, not only in dairy but across all sectors because this has a knock-on effect for all sectors.

Mr. Eddie Punch

What are we hearing in Europe? I think it is fair to say we are coming up against very negative messaging from Europe. There is a bigger question and that is who runs Europe. The European Union used to have three institutions, namely, the Commission, Council and Parliament. In recent years, it seems to us that all control has moved to the Commission. The Commission was meant to be a neutral arbiter and overseer of the implementation of policy that should be led to a certain extent by the Council and EU Summits. The views of the Parliament should be respected properly and that is not happening in the European Union at the moment. I grant that is a big statement to make but the facts are these. In the last few years, the European Union has said it does not want money spent on the promotion of meat and dairy products. We have had an EU protein strategy which was meant to be about the provision of protein for feed but became an initial proposal to move to plant-based diets for citizens. We have had and an industrial emissions directive which was impossible for livestock farms to comply with. Granted, this directive has been rolled back. Yesterday, we had the vote on the nature restoration law. The history of that was that the Vice-President of the European Commission laid down the law to political parties in the European Parliament. The real question is to what extent the Commission is overstepping its mandate with respect to the way in which the European Union is meant to function.

If we go back to the nitrates scenario, we have to look at this very carefully. It is true that we have room to improve but as Deputy Fitzmaurice and others have said, the glass is actually half full. Half our waters are good quality. We are not the worst in Europe but at the top end when it comes to water quality, and that is not being recognised. If we allow the Commission to dominate the discussion, we are not going to win. There is a real political question about how this is being done. When Commissioner Timmermans told the European People’s Party that it had to do what he wanted - that is a fact and I have it on record - he suggested that if the EPP did not back down on the nature restoration law, it would find it difficult to get its policy agenda up to the top of the list. That was a huge overstepping of the role of the Commission. It seems to me that it was a threat to the democratic functioning of the European Union. I know that is a big statement but it is what happened. The 27 Heads of State have to bring back control.

To discuss a different issue, President von der Leyen took it upon herself to decide European policy on Israel and Gaza without proper consultation with the leaders of the 27 member states. That is a bigger issue that is outside our remit but it demonstrates that the Commission needs to consider where it stands and the Council, the EU Summits and the European Parliament have to regain respect in this decision-making process.

Mr. Dan Lynam

On water quality, I have represented ICSA on the ASSAP since the programme started in 2018 and I have taken part in many river walks and talks. I will back up what Mr. Canning said. I was at a river walk outside Birr last year where the farmer was doing everything correctly. Outside the fence, on the other side of river, the farmer had the cattle walking into the river willy-nilly. During that ASSAP, we had a river walk on our farm. The ASSAP adviser recommended two actions. First, we were planning to built a silage pit and he asked us to move it to a different place. Second, he asked us to move the cow roadway. My son is farming with me and he is in charge. We undertook to raise up and move 300 m of cow roadway following a recommendation from ASSAP. We did that with no funding from the Government or anyone else - the entire cost came out of our own pockets - in order to help water quality on our farm.

That is what we did. The ASSAP is running some pilot schemes now and because we had a river walk on our farm, we have been asked to have a pilot scheme on the Gageborough River, which flows through Clara and Offaly, but starts on our farm. That is what we are doing for water quality.

I will ask the ACA about a few matters. It deals with more than 50% of farmers. Mr. Canning mentioned an approximate figure of 30,000. How do we get them into the mix? Does Teagasc give the ACA the rights or is the ACA charged? We all need to come together on this. Whatever bit of information he, I or someone else has, we need to collaborate. Is that possible at the moment? Is the Department working with the ACA?

I listened with interest to Mr. Canning. Did he say that even we can, for example, sow different grasses and do all the different things? In fairness to every derogation farmer, if we want water quality, with the length of the extended closed season in the line of washings, with the way it is going, we will need much more slurry storage. We need the grants to be reassessed and to be given to farmers whether they are derogation farmers or not. The Department should not hem and haw about it, because that is the only way many of the issues will be solved. From what Mr. Canning said, with which I tend to agree, even if we turn upside down and do everything, if the goalposts stay where they are, in that if a farmer goes down in one of the four areas, it is game over. Does the EPA's way of doing it not have to change as well? If I was doing the leaving certificate examination and I got three questions right and one wrong, I would get 75%. People would be proud of me. However, farmers are failures if they go down in one of the four areas. What does the ACA think about that?

I have a question for ICOS. Will there be loss if this goes down to 170 kg N/ha and what will be the consequences for employment and processing plants? If we do not keep cattle numbers up, some day we will hear that a factory has closed and everyone will be giving out about it.

Does the ICSA meet the EPA and has it met Revenue about the VAT refund? Even today, I heard about the mats for slats. They are talking about a fixed item, but I defy anyone to take mats out of one slatted shed and put them into another because each shed has a different space.

On the VAT refund, does the ICSA find that Revenue has become stringent? Why is there such a closing in on all this at a time when we need to help farmers and not kick them day in and day out?

I ask the witnesses to keep their answers as brief as possible.

Mr. Tom Canning

The difficulty with the EPA approach is the management is of a catchment area. If we take a large catchment where one or two farmers do not cause a problem as regards nutrient loss, it will not be reflected in the whole catchment area. It would be possible that 90% of the farmers comply with the regulations and for there still to be a problem with water quality. A number of factors affect water quality, such as hydrology, hydromorphology, as Mr. Fennell mentioned, soil type and climate. Each of these factors can have an effect so we need to look at a trend over a period rather than taking a snapshot as we did in 2022. A trend was not measured then and we are going to take another snapshot in 2024 using the metrics that were applied previously. We need to give the regulations time, but we also need a change in management practice. That is where organisations such as ours need to be involved along with our counterparts in Teagasc. We all have the same aim. We work closely together, but we need to feel we can be involved and that we can bring our client base in, who, as the lad says, are currently being disadvantaged in this whole process and being denied information. We are simply not getting it and not being involved.

Mr. Breian Carroll

The Deputy asked about the tools. We have a request that the tools being used by public service advisers also be provided to us so we can bring them to farmers. Our members paid for the nutrient management planning, NMP, system in the past. We were the only party that was involved who paid for it. I understand there is a cost to all this, but perhaps the State could step in as this is an important tool to give to every adviser who goes out to farmers.

The taxpayer pays for that.

Mr. Breian Carroll

Yes, and again it is critical at the moment with the fertiliser register. Farmers are asking us for NMP for the current year to tell them exactly what type of fertiliser is required on their farms.

Mr. Noel Feeney

The Deputy also mentioned the approximately 30,000 farmers who are not engaged with the public advisory services. Mr. Carroll mentioned, for example, the fertiliser register, which will not only apply to derogation farmers, but to every farmer, including ordinary sheep farmers, suckler farmers and so on. There is a lack of information available to those farmers. We told the nitrates section of the Department recently that both private and public advisory services and the nitrates section need to engage with these farmers. To get farmers to buy into this, all farmers need to be notified because some will ask why we need all this soil sampling and so forth. The Department, and especially the nitrates section, must take a lead on this and we will all fall in behind it because there is a huge amount of misinformation out there regarding the fertiliser database.

Mr. Edward Carr

I thank the Deputy for his question on the impact it would have on the co-operative sector if it went back to 170 kg N/ha. It would have major implications, as I said in my submission. There has been an investment of €1.6 billion in the co-operative sector since the abolition of quotas. The loss of supply - if the threshold went back to 170 kg N/ha, there would be an 18% reduction in the dairy herd - would result in an absolute cost to the local rural economies of €1.7 billion, which is massive. All the co-operatives that have invested - there has been investment in every co-operative - would be inefficient if they lose any of the supply going through these plants. At the end of the day, not only would it culminate in a straightforward loss of €1.7 billion, but there would also be a streamline loss. The survival of all these businesses is based on a cent per litre price. The price paid to the farmer has to surface and pay for the investment and the running of the operation. If there is an 18% reduction in the dairy herd, most of these businesses will not be viable and that would be a major loss to the local economies of these areas.

Mr. Eddie Punch

We had considerable engagement with the EPA in 2023 on a whole range of issues, including climate, peatlands, global warming potential, GWP,* and so on. We also had considerable engagement with it on the agricultural water quality working group on water issues. When we engage on a one-to-one basis, the EPA seems to be open to considering all the issues we bring up. Our view is that much of this is stacked against farmers.

However, there are other engagements with the EPA elsewhere such as the famous tweet last year, where it seems to be a somewhat different story. We will continue to engage with the EPA but we have some concern about the way in which it treats the farming and other sectors.

I thank all the witnesses for coming in and giving their time. I am very worried. When we see the finishing industry is practically gone, I am only wondering how far away agriculture is from that. One of the questions I have is whether young fellas will want to get involved or invest their lives in agriculture. I see it around the place that I come from. There are many young fellas whose fathers have fine places built up, with sweat and blood and with money they did not have at all, and they are drifting away. I have mentioned in here before that I know one man who had 58 cows and now he says he will have to cut them down to 48. Surely there should be some way of looking after him. There is no livelihood there now when you cut down to that. It was marginal enough as it was. He was doing other things as well. That is one place closed down. There is another fella trying to get going up the road from him. He has a big old place, he got it from the uncle, and he is investing a lot of money in it. He was prepared to build another slatted house to store slurry and he has had an objection to his planning. It is going on now for over a year with a serial objector. He cannot get the basic thing, the planning.

On slurry spreading, they have a different rule altogether in the North of Ireland and that is only over the ditch line. You apply for a permit to spread it in dry weather. We are forced here to wait until it rains and we are flooded and tanks are full. What do they do? They have to spread it. That is one of things. The Government must realise and be honest. Back in 2012 or 2013, the Minister, Deputy Coveney, did away with the quotas and he told fellas to increase the production of milk. They did that, they took off their coats and went at it. Now he disowns that statement. He is still in government but his is disowning that. At that time, he said the Chinese will buy it and it will be the new liquid gold, white gold, he said. Now we find we must cut back our cows and the Chinese are increasing theirs. They are boasting now that they will have over a million extra cows. God almighty, lads.

We had the case all last summer where the Minister for Transport, who is also the Minister for the environment, had a Luas going up and down the city of Dublin painted white with some black writing on it telling us not to drink milk, that it was bad for us. I raised it in the Dáil and I shamed him a few different times. That is the gospel truth, lads. That is what we are up against. I know that all of us here mean well, from the Cathaoirleach down. Our hearts are on our sleeves fighting for farmers.

The only vote we got yesterday in Europe was Luke "Ming" Flanagan, and I salute him. He is from Roscommon where Deputy Fitzmaurice is from. At least he is learning from Deputy Fitzmaurice all the time. To think that the people we vote for voted against the farmers in Brussels yesterday. Where are we going? Like the auld Yanks said long ago, "Man, they said, you can fight them all but you cannot fight city hall." We are fighting a losing battle, lads. It is the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, who put up a case for us to help us to ensure we are getting fair pay, which we are not getting from Europe at the present time. We are not getting it. There are fellas trying to do their best with slurry and they are being prohibited in every way. They will not get grants. They are boasting one day that they will give us a grant and the next day Revenue will come and take the same amount away because they say we are not qualifying. This is what is happening. They are putting a bush in every gap.

You all mean well. I mean well. All these men here and the Cathaoirleach, Deputy Cahill, mean well. I know it and I depend on it. I wish Cathaoirleach, Deputy Cahill, were Minister for agriculture instead of some of the lads they have tried.

If you want to ask questions, you have four minutes.

I asked one question there. Do the witnesses think that young fellas are going to carry on where the old fellas left off? The other question is for Mr. McNamara. Why is it that they are focusing their attention on the water that is coming out of the farmers' yards? I will just deal with Kerry. Since 2007 or 2008, at that time, Scartaglin was first in line to get a treatment plan. It was number one on the programme. There has to be pollution, and there is a settlement there. I am not blaming the people of Scartaglin, they are the finest people. Tom Fleming represented the area and both of us fought together and got it up to the top of the list to put a treatment system there. There is not one there yet. Castleisland is just up the road from it, a great town, a thriving town. They have been looking for an extension to their treatment system since 1986. I found documents belonging to my father above in the shed. He was fighting that case at that time. Currow down the road has no treatment facility. They are just three places, but it is replicated all over Kerry and I am sure it is everywhere else. Why is that water different from what the farmers are doing?

They want to get rid of farmers. We have plant-based foods and then we had the Taoiseach boasting a couple of years ago that he was vegan and was not eating meat, and more or less said that he was proud of it. I do not care what he is but he should not be trying to damage our industry and our people who fought hard to keep their place and who have worked so hard back over the years. Like I said, with sweat and blood and no money bar depending on grants. Then they want us to rewet places after fellas breaking their hands and their legs inside in drains trying to flag them and to dry the places, and now they want to block it up. I am not saying that we should get violent or angry or go as bad as the people in the European countries, but we are taking it lying down, whatever way you say it. We are lying down and just rolling over. This is wrong. I worry about anything we try to do. Mr. Canning had great points and I can see that he knows what he is doing and so do all the rest of the witnesses. We are getting no assistance at all, no matter what we do.

There will be a food shortage and maybe they will change their minds then. Until then, unless there is some massive change of direction, we are finished. Young fellas will not take this on to be demonised, villainised and to be told they are causing a climate crisis. The grandest man of all died a few weeks ago. Ray Bates was a climatologist. He said it was fine if people could reduce emissions but he did not believe in it if people were going to be economically hurt and damaged. You can read up on him. He spent 26 years of his life in Denmark. He only had a small column, but he disagreed with the way we are going at it now.

I will be brief because I know people have been around for quite a long time and most of the questions I want to put have probably already been asked. I know Mr. Feeney and Mr. McNamara well. I hope his sheep are going well.

Mr. Sean McNamara

They are, yes.

I also know Mr. Carr and Mr. Farrell and I know some of the rest of them less well. I might not go as far as Deputy Danny Healy-Rae, but I have said publicly for a long time that there is a lot of beating farmers with the stick over environmental issues. My late father used to talk about the original rural environment protection scheme, REPS. Approximately 98% of farmers took part in that. From day one, farmers and farming families had a huge consciousness about the environment. I grew up on a small farm myself, as Mr. Feeney would know. We were very good with environmental issues, like all of our neighbours. Litter was not allowed around the place. There was no food waste. There were many good things except there was a lot of poverty for farmers.

I do not expect everybody to answer the questions, but I will be brief. We had a session recently relating to the nitrates directives and An Taisce made a statement that the starting point for any discussion on nitrates and the nitrates derogation must be an acknowledgement that nitrate from dairy farmers is negatively impacting on the quality of both surface and groundwater and we need a different approach to mitigate that impact. I have had running battles before with An Taisce over planning. Do those people ever meet face to face with the witnesses or do they look for a meeting before they make public statements on an issue like that? Second, in countries that are down to 170 kg N/ha, have we any feedback on the damage that has been done to the agricultural sector in those countries? From an Irish perspective we have a lot of intense farming, and 170 kg N/ha would not be a good situation to be in. Third, I see group water schemes up and down this country, mainly backed by farmers, doing fantastic work and getting environmental awards. Maybe some of the witnesses are members of them. Is this ever taken into account? It is not talked about enough. In the west and midlands, in particular, as Mr. Feeney and Mr. McNamara would know, there are many group water schemes constantly working on improving the water quality in their areas. I think one group in County Roscommon recently got a national award for the work it was doing. Is that ever taken into account? I presume many would know or are involved. There is also the challenge of a wet climate. This is the most worrying thing when talking about pollution. We have to get more money to give farmers the wherewithal to put in place extra storage. It is a must. Last year, how many farmers had their cattle out? I would say they did not have them out for four or five months. I am thinking of our small farm at home. You just could not put them out. There is grass and fields at the moment and you could not put cattle out on them. Our climate is definitely getting wetter. How do we deal with that? It is important that we get extra financing, up to 80 or 90%, to enable farmers put on that extra storage. I know there is something at the moment through TAMS. I will leave it there for this evening.

I thank the ICSA, ICOS and ACA for being here. I appreciate the water framework directive has been referenced in some of the opening statements. There are challenges particularly concerning Uisce Éireann. I would like to ask more about that. I know they have responded to a number of the contributors already. Senator Murphy has spoken about the water schemes we see across the country. In what ways can we in the Oireachtas look at how to improve access? The first point concerns Uisce Éireann getting access to more funds, and local authorities having the wherewithal for wastewater treatment plants. It is not solely landowners and farmers who are responsible for water quality in Ireland. I see that water quality in Ireland has a large number of stakeholders. I want to see that focus being brought to bear. I know, for example, we have the increase of up to €12,000 this year for septic tanks, but what will be the take-up on that? Let us also look at the increase in slurry storage capacity. People spoke about the TAMS grant and so on but there are other challenges with that. I know that also links in with local authorities.

I have a question, and I apologise because I was putting this together online and did not realise it would be so quick. How do we look at supporting Uisce Éireann in meeting a lot of these requirements at many levels outside of just the farmers and landowners? Second, in the submissions made, there was reference made to everything that has been done in terms of low emission slurry spreading and looking at the reduction in fertiliser and how the witnesses have seen that and how there are statistics to back it up. Irish farmers and agriculture are world leaders in how they do things. What else should we be looking at? Where else can we support farmers to meet these requirements and in engaging with that type of technology? Those are for whoever would like to take the questions.

Mr. Sean McNamara

The biggest problem we see as farmers is the county councils and their inspections of farmers. The county councils themselves are the biggest polluters, not the farmers. A lot of the raw sewage from most towns is running into rivers, streams and lakes. We see it ourselves. I am not that far away from a town. I see that the plan is not working. It is just going down the rivers and that is it, especially with the wet weather. It is just running down the river. Before the councils have the cheek to come out to have similar inspections of farmers, let them get their houses in order first, them and the EIP. That is all I can say. There is no point people coming out and torturing farmers, telling them they have this and that wrong, and they have to do this, that and the other. Let them get their own houses in order first. I could say 99% of farmers are compliant enough. Something can happen in the wet weather through no fault of the farmer. Most farmers are fully compliant. I turn to wastewater treatment and sewage plants. Uisce Éireann has been getting serious money put into it for the past ten years. I do not think it is any further on than it was ten years ago, whereas farmers are getting nothing and are almost doing it out of their own pockets.

I agree about the wastewater treatment plants.

Mr. Sean McNamara

Deputy Healy-Rae talked about young farmers going back to farming. I have a young lad farming with me. We have their enterprise on our farm. There is no viable labour for any young farmer or farmer anymore. We can forget about this and talk about what we like. We can talk about nature restoration, nitrates and what we like. However, in a very short time we will see the big problem is food security. That will be a big problem. It is because of the simple reason that we will lose a generation of farmers. That is for certain. We will definitely lose it.

I have been out in Europe. I was listening to Deputy Fitzmaurice talking about going to Europe. I was out in Europe. One crowd is talking about food security and another crowd is talking about cutting back in numbers. We see what is going on in England now with sheep. We see what food security can do. The Houthis are bombing ships in the Suez Canal. The New Zealand lamb cannot come into England. What happens? Lamb has gone up to €8.20/kg or €8.30/kg in England, which has not been seen in years. That proves the point that food security is a serious issue. We could talk away for days and days about all this and about how farmers should do this, that and the other. However, the main thing we need to look at is food security.

Food security and investment in wastewater treatment plants.

Mr. Dan Lynam

I have a son farming at home with me. He is in charge. I have heard my wife say on a few occasions that it is an awful pity he did not take another profession because he cannot get weekends or evenings off. He has a young family of three young children. Right now, I do not see his sons taking on the farming because it is too big of a job. That is all I have to say.

So it is the bureaucracy.

Mr. Noel Feeney

I will address a number of Senator Murphy’s questions. Farmers have got terrible PR over the past couple years. It is unfair because, as he mentioned, our first environmental scheme goes back to the mid-1990s, namely, REPS, which was very successful and initiated the idea of protecting biodiversity, wildlife and water quality. Built into that environmental scheme was a nutrient management plan, which has not really been built on with successful schemes. There is a huge buy-in from farmers all over Ireland to do these schemes and be part of them. We saw around 9,500 farmers apply for the ACRES 2 before Christmas. Will they all get in? We do not know. There is a huge appetite out there.

We see it ourselves. We are dealing with farmers who are the coalface every day of the week and many of us advisers are farmers ourselves. The hoops we have to jump through are huge. Advice is needed but, at the end of the day, the bottom line is it is a huge asset to rural Ireland. The farming community in rural Ireland is huge. It goes hand in hand. Mr. Carroll will talk about succession shortly. My point is that there is a huge appetite and we need more funding for it if this is how it will be going forward. We will have wetter weather. People say our summers are now in May and June. We need to get the silage and hay made in May and June. We have seen what happened this year all of the country, even in the sunny south east. There were huge issues such as straw shortages. The roll on for that is with suckler farmers. We now have a large number of farmers in organic. There is a straw shortage as well for straw bedding. The money has to increase from Europe. This is what they demand. In this current CAP, the money has been cut. The money has been cut, yet, as farmers and advisers, we have to jump higher ditches. That is a just a comment on that. Does Mr. Carroll wish to come in on succession?

Mr. Breian Carroll

Deputy Healy-Rae asked about succession. There are various reasons and our colleague in the ICSA referenced it. There are many other attractions in the economy and perhaps easier work. I take a personal interest in farm succession. We had an EIP in it and much of what came out of it was there is a serious threat to the next generation taking over. The lack of a sustained income over a long period is one of the factors, as well as the lifestyle choices. It is not just happening on the lower-income farms; it is an issue on good, viable dairy farms. There are lifestyle choice involved in getting someone to work seven days a week. The economy is creating attraction for those people also, even on a part-time basis. We have to be careful that we do not regulate farmers out of existence. Of course there has to be deterrents but there has to be a balance to try to attract the next generation into farming.

In response to Senator Murphy’s direct question, no, we do not have any communications with An Taisce. That was the Senator’s direct question.

Responding to Senator Dolan’s question, yes, on the wider climate on all of that, we see severe pressures in different parts of the country on the storage system over the winter period. Farmers are trying to balance that. One suggestion is the following. As I said earlier, if I go to a farm next week, we are more or less telling the farmer it could be eight or nine months, on a positive side, before they can initiate their progress. We must reflect on the fact that almost €400 million was spent by farmers in TAMS 2. Farmers think TAMS is a fantastic scheme. They are willing to spend despite the income challenges we talked about. They need to see a future over the next few years for that. Where an additional facility has been added to an existing farmyard, we should look at a way of fast-tracking those, notwithstanding that they have to justify it being able to meet other environmental regulations. Currently a farmer is probably waiting up to nine months. With regard to any farms we have been on in the past couple weeks, we are basically telling those farmers it will be 2025 before they can start any projects.

Mr. Tom Canning

On the technology – I will not delay it – we have seen a fair bit of generational change in the dairy industry, which offers a more sustainable and attractive income source rather than the drystock farmers. The average age of the drystock farmers I deal with in Cavan is 70. It is incredible. Younger farmer are more likely to adopt technologies. I worked in the dairy business with Lakeland Dairies - the former Killeshandra co-op. I have seen huge developments in terms of breeding cows, efficiency, longevity and a cow bred for the place she is being reared. I have seen farmers adopt technologies in respect of reseeding swards and the incorporation of clover. We have even moved towards multispecies sward. However, dramatically, as the lads already mentioned, we have seen massive reductions in chemical fertiliser use here where there is more efficient planning and technology with regard to applying the right fertiliser at the right time. The fertiliser database is welcome. It has focused farmers' attention on this. The most common question I am asked on a day-to-day basis is about what fertiliser can be used this year while staying within the limits. That is critically important.

That is absolutely incredible, as well as soil sampling.

Mr. Edward Carr

I will address a few points. Deputy Healy-Rae asked about the generation part of it. I said previously that we have a generation of well-educated young farmers who are willing to take on the mantle of carrying on into the next generation. However, clarity needs to be brought to the way we legislate and the way we implement and regulate that legislation. This generation of farmers is the best in class at grassland management. We are the best in the world. We have a breeding policy in dairy that is the envy of everywhere else in the world. That generation is willing to put those technologies through.

We just gave the example that 2,150 farmers were affected by moving the derogation from 250 kg N/ha to 220 kg N/ha. Some 800 of those farmers had small family farms of under 40 ha. They were literally put out of business. It is as simple as that. They were put out of business because of that one decision. There will be another 800 put out of business if we reduce it any further - I am not saying how far back we will go. Do not forget we have that generation and we can be very positive about that. We have a very well-educated generation raring to go to produce food in this country. It is the way we implement legislation that will dictate whether they can do it or not. They are willing to do it.

I will ask Mr. Matthews to address a few other issues the Deputies raised.

Mr. Niall Matthews

On Senator Murphy’s question on the effect on other countries that have gone to 170 kg N/ha, I cannot give any detailed economic analysis, but looking at protests lately, there is much discontent, much of which is stemming from extra bureaucracy, red tape and restrictions. They all have major concerns about generational renewal.

France, in particular, has a serious issue with the lack of young farmers ready to take over. It all plays into a negative sentiment for younger farmers.

On Senator Dolan's question on technology, as Mr. Canning alluded to, some are fairly basic technologies. They just need more adaption. There is the old nugget of the nutrient management plan. Every farmer in the country should have an nutrient management plan with up-to-date soil samples. That is a pretty basic one. A few of the more recent technologies include replacing chemical nitrogen with clover swards and mixed sward species, protected urea, and lower protein concentrate, which is now being put out there as a means of mitigating the nitrogen part. Slurry storage is a very basic one. I am not sure it could be called a technology but it is essential. Everything needs to be done to ensure we have enough slurry storage, whether that is fast-tracking planning applications or ensuring there is a decent grant for everyone to avail of. Those few things are my take on it.

Mr. Eamonn Farrell

I will say a quick word on group water schemes, which was mentioned by Senators Murphy and Dolan. Those schemes are part of the ICOS family. We are very proud of that. It is good to highlight their good work. No different from the call from the ACA for it to be involved in the process, particularly as regards ASSAP and the new EIP, it is important that all stakeholders who can contribute to a solution are brought into the discussion.

There have been excellent contributions from the three organisations. The committee made a decision that it would put a report together on the nitrates derogation, compliance and the financial implications of any further reduction to the 220 kg N/ha. The representatives' contributions have been very well researched and briefed. They will greatly help us in putting our report together.

Last week, environmental groups were in the room. One of the groups was very clear, and this was referenced by Senator Murphy who quoted from its opening statement, that the actions farmers are taking, such as low-emissions slurry spreading, clover in swards, and protected urea, were virtually a waste of time as regards improving water quality. Those are the words of that group. It was stated that the only thing that would have an impact on water quality was reducing the stocking rate, about which that group was very clear. That was the environmental group's message here last week.

As Deputy Fitzmaurice said, when we were in Brussels in September we met three different Commissioners. They were completely consistent in that the only policy that mattered in Brussels at that stage was environmental policy and, in particular, climate change. Nothing else really mattered. The consistency between the different Commissioners was frightening. You would think they were all reading the exact same script. That is the background.

Mr. Carr talked about the Commission and the fact we are the only ones who have a system of farming that deserves a derogation and the only ones who can justify it with our long growing season, etc. Holland is exporting slurry to Poland at the moment. The emissions from that would have to be put up in lights. Holland has a very intensive farming and agrifood industry. We would have to convince those other 26 countries that we deserve this derogation. It will most definitely take everyone in this country who is agriculturally focused pulling together to demonstrate the huge damage any further change to the derogation would do to our economy.

One of the most frequent questions, and other members will say the same, that I have been asked in the past six to 12 months, by dairy farmers in particular, is whether a cessation scheme will come in for dairy farmers. I could not put a figure on how many calls I have got on that from farmers. That puts in context the morale in the industry at the moment and the lack of certainty for its future. I grew up in the farming era from the early eighties to 2013-14, when our industry was severely handicapped by quotas, which stopped young people from entering the industry. We are now threatened with an environmental quota that will do the exact same thing again. It will freeze our industry, probably even worse than quotas did. As was referenced, a number of small or medium-sized family farms will be forced to reduce cow numbers. Again, the viability of those farms will go down the tubes.

I was in the Tirlán innovation centre yesterday at its invitation. I am not picking it out as one co-op. I am sure other co-ops are doing this but I was invited there yesterday. Tirlán is putting very significant resources into this battle because it knows the viability of what is a multinational business depends on the supply of milk. The wheel turns so quickly. Two or three years ago, we were told there was going to be a cap on peak supply. Now, the only concern processors have is whether they will be able to keep their processing plants supplied with an adequate supply of milk. That wheel has turned very quickly.

Food security was mentioned a number of times. It is the only thing that will bring common sense back to legislators, but we will have to wait a while for the food security issue to kick in. The start of the war in Ukraine brought it back to the table but it was very quickly forgotten about again. Maybe lamb prices and the scarcity of lamb in the UK might bring a little of common sense to it again. Europe not only needs to be self-sufficient in energy but self-sufficient in food. We have the ability to do that.

There is a thing that really galls me about environmentalists, and Deputy Healy-Rae referred to it. We have a major issue with migration at present. Many of those people are migrating because their part of the world is not able to feed them any more. They are migrating because of climate change, etc., and their countries not being able to feed them. Western Europe has the ability to produce food but we seem to be putting every conceivable obstacle in the way of that. I fully accept that climate change is a fact of life. The amount of rain we are getting at the moment has been referred to a number of times. We have had a couple of wet years in a row and we have to adapt our practices. I talk to a lot of farmers. Farmers will always adapt and accept the challenges put in front of them but they need a level playing field and certainty. Any further change to our derogation will do such terminal damage to our industry and our whole rural economy that it will be just inconceivable.

This will not be an easy battle. We have not got an awful lot of friends out there in fighting this battle. I am referring to Europe. The point was made earlier that all the organisations are lobby groups. I strongly urge them that the mantra about the measurement of our water quality and the rules that were there when we went back in August-September 2023, have to be changed. The committee will focus on that. The measurement of water quality, and the fact that our water quality is the fourth-highest in Europe, has to come into the equation. I will not pre-empt what the committee decides on the report but the parameters for measuring our water quality definitely have to change and reflect what the reality is.

We put parameters in place in the spring of 2022 when there was an agreement in Brussels that we were not going to be able to drum through. That has to be taken out of the equation before the next review takes place. That review is only 15 to 16 months away, which is a short window. We have reviews coming at us every two years but if we are able to hold our ground in the review at the back end of 2025, we should have a four- or five-year window after that. We cannot be coming back every two years, with uncertainty coming down the tracks again.

As a committee, we obviously have to listen to every side. That is our job as an Oireachtas committee. We have to take the views of all stakeholders into account, including environmental, agricultural and other actors. We will be doing that but I hope we can put together a report that will stand up to scrutiny and help us when we go back to Brussels. A call was made earlier for a task force, which is valid. However, there is a water framework group in place at the moment and we must ask how well that is functioning and what it is bringing to the table. I am not trusting anyone else to do what we have to do. We intend to play our part here in making sure that the proper arguments get to where they should get in Brussels.

I thank our guests for their well-researched contributions. Senator Lombard wishes to make a comment before we finish.

I want to briefly acknowledge the Cathaoirleach's role in these proceedings, as well as the contributions of our three sets of witnesses. They made really good presentations. There are one or two minor points on which I seek clarity. The presentation by the Agricultural Consultants Association was really well put together but I seek clarity on a point made in the final page. There is a reference to mandatory annual training for all farmers. I ask our guests to clarify where they are going with that. It is a really positive statement. According to the figures provided, there are approximately 55,000 farmers working with the ACA and a further 45,000 working with Teagasc but there are around 30,000 farmers who have no interaction with anybody. What is the ACA proposing in this regard? Is there a suggestion that there would be a limit in terms of the percentage of farmers involved or that all farmers would be mandated to get involved so that it would be an effective training programme for everybody in the system and not just the 13,000 directly involved in the nitrates action plan? I seek clarity on that.

My second question is for Mr. Carr, who also made a very impressive presentation. He spoke about an 18% reduction if we go down to 170 kg N/Ha which is a frightening figure. Realistically, the manufacturing side of the system is very concerned about the possible haemorrhaging that could take place in that space if we were to lose the volume being proposed. I am not exactly sure where an 18% reduction would leave us but I ask Mr. Carr to give us an indication of the carnage in the sector if we were to drop to 170 kg N/Ha.

I ask our guests to be brief in their replies.

Mr. Tom Canning

In relation to the training what we are proposing is a one-day annual mandatory training session, initially for farmers with stocking rates above 130 kg N/Ha. This would be run on the same basis as ACRES. A precedent was set with ACRES training where farmers have a classroom session during which the logic behind mitigation measures, such as the fencing of water courses, the planting of hedgerows and the reduction of overland flows, is clearly and simply explained. That is followed up with an afternoon session on a farm, where farmers can see the measures practically implemented and the host farmer can talk about the benefits. We have already done this over the last year. We have provided training ourselves, as have our counterparts in Teagasc, to the 46,000 farmers that are engaged in the ACRES programme. A further 9,000 are coming into that programme this year. The precedent is there and it has been very successful. Basically, we set out and explain the regulations very clearly to farmers and show them good, practical implementation.

Mr. Edward Carr

We reckon there would be an 18% reduction if the derogation was reduced from 220 kg N/Ha to 170 kg N/Ha, which equates to 1.5 billion litres. The co-op that I represent through my work with ICOS, the Arrabawn Co-operative, is an average-sized co-op in Nenagh in County Tipperary that processes 500 million litres per year. The reality is that three Arrabawn's would go to the wall if such a reduction happened. The equivalent of three co-ops of that size would go out of business. I will not mention the names of any other co-ops but that would be the impact.

Thanks again to all of our witnesses. Our next meeting will be tomorrow morning when we will resume our pre-legislative scrutiny of the Agriculture Appeals (Amendment) Bill 2024. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine will be in attendance.

The joint committee adjourned at 8.46 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 29 February 2024.
Barr
Roinn