Mr. Joe Condon:

I will give the opening remarks and Mr. O'Donnell will come in later on. I thank the committee for inviting us here today. It was short notice. While many of the farmers that we represent operate extensive farming systems, both on hills and low lands, and are currently within the nitrates regulation, the proposed nitrates action programme, NAP, contains elements that are concerning. One issue of concern relates to cattle accessing our watercourses. Currently, only farmers who require a nitrates derogation stocking rate of over 170 kg of nitrogen per hectare or above are required to fence off watercourses at a minimum distance of 1.5 m.

Based on the consultation process relating to the updating of these regulations, the following general points emerged. The requirement to fence watercourses should be extended to all farms. We believe that given the type of land that we are farming that this is not legally or practically possible. All watercourses identified as being at risk from agricultural pressures should be fenced within three years and the measures should be reviewed in future nitrate action plans, NAPs, to effectively determine its impact. While we appreciate the need to protect watercourses where there is an intensive level of agricultural activity, we do not accept that the same measures are required where farmers' activities are low. On this basis, we are recommending that any farmer with a stocking rate at or below 100 kg of nitrate per hectare should not have to fence off watercourses. For many livestock farmers, especially on our hills and commonages, the requirement to fence off these watercourses would, in most cases, force them out of cattle.

On private hill land, much of which has a Natura 2000 designation, those farmers will face enormous costs not just in terms of fencing materials, but also in getting permission, as this is an activity that requires consent. This would require prior planning permission, something that would not be guaranteed. Farmers in commonage would also face similar costs as many commonages are also subject to the Natura 2000 regulations. However, commonage farmers would have an additional concern through possible objections from other shareholders.

The second issue of concern relates to out-wintering of cattle. For many farmers operating on extensive farming systems, this has been an essential part of their ongoing operation, with many of these farmers currently operating all-year round grazing systems. This option must remain part of any future nitrates plan.

A third point relates to additional storage capacity and the possibility of extending the closed period for the spreading of slurry. In relation to storage capacity, this would be reflective of the stocking rate and with regard to extending the closed period, we are not in favour of this.

The recommendation for the proposed NAPs seems to be based on the premise that significant changes are needed, as the current regulations are not delivering to the desired outcomes. However, for the majority of farmers operating under the current regulation, there is a growing sense of frustration, as they see two standards applied. There is also a belief that if the current regulations had been applied without the opt-outs and the blind eye, we would not now have to review and alter them. Any updated plan cannot facilitate further derogations on the exporting of slurry. The rules have to be fair to everyone.

In summary, as detailed, concerns around the possible fencing of watercourses especially on commonages and hill lands are a major issue and something that must not happen. Likewise, farmers who are currently operate all year round grazing must be accommodated. Proper consideration will have to be given to all farmers' stocking rates when accessing storage capacity.