Mr. Pat McCormack:

I thank the Chair. Never was it more important to get the opportunity to address the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I sincerely thank them all for attending today. We have made a submission and committee members will have gone through it, so I will not go through it word for word. I have been involved in farming politics for ten to 12 years and never before has our industry been under such scrutiny. We are facing climate change and there is a perception out there that is there is not a cap. It is fair to say that directly, there is not a cap at this point in time, even though my colleague, John Enright, and I sit on the Food Vision beef and sheep group, as well as the Food Vision dairy group. Time will tell as regards a cap.

There is a huge challenge out there and it is upon us without much consultation, which is the nitrates, the nitrates derogation and the nitrates action programme. There is a perception out there that this may affect some large farmers. However, the reality is that it affects the family farm model. There is the model that is used by some of larger institutions, such as Bord Bia or Ornua to promote and advertise our products right around the globe.

At the outset, I give the committee an example of a 30 ha farm with 84 cows, which is the average-sized farm. By the time this presentation is finished, they could find themselves back with 62 cows. For many young and middle-aged farmers, that may be the difference between being viable and not. That is the challenge that is there for us. If it undermines the viability of our family farm model, over a short period of time, it will ultimately undermine the viability of our industry at a processing level. It will cause severe economic carnage for many family farms.

Water quality is very often mentioned. One would think that the farmer had no cognisance about or interest in water quality. However, the reality is that farmers, whether they are dairy or otherwise, are more dependent on water quality not just than most people, but than anyone.

We have invested heavily in slurry storage in recent years. We have invested in low-emissions slurry spreaders. There is ongoing investment into and huge uptake in the use of protected urea. Our State advisory service, Teagasc, has strongly indicated that it will take between 18 and 24 months for a change in practice in order to deliver results. That relates to the message that we want to drive home here today, which is that we need time for the change in practice in order to deliver results. Unfortunately, there seems to be one regulation after another in that regard. The opportunity of time is not afforded to the industry.

I mentioned earlier that climate change is here and that we are involved in the Food Vision dairy group and the Food Vision beef and sheep group. There is an opportunity to embrace new technologies that can deliver from an emissions perspective, but also from a nitrates perspective. The nitrates regulations are upon us here and now, it is fair to say, without consultation with the farm bodies. The most disappointing thing for me as a farm leader was that we took a delegation to Brussels to meet with officials of the agri-environmental group, the Directorate-General for Environment. The message that seemed to come from Ireland was that we need to target intensive farmers. It was hugely disappointing that Irish men or women would say that. Some of our most intensive farmers are our family farm models. They have modest holdings that need to be intensive in order for them to make a living, because the margin had been eroded. Change is coming with the chemical fertiliser sales and register and the reductions in fertiliser use, both of which help our water quality and our opportunity from a nitrates perspective. However, we need those 18 to 24 months of time. When it comes to farmer supports, most recently, we have seen in the agri-climate rural environment scheme, ACRES, that a 1990s payment in an era where inflation has eroded farmer margins is not at all attractive to commercial farmers, irrespective of whether they are in the area of dairy or beef.

One of the greatest threats of all to the dairy industry is cow banding. If a cow weighs approximately 6,500 kg, a farmer with a 30 ha farm will have to reduce his or her numbers significantly by approximately 14 or thereabouts. That is hugely challenging and undermining. On the issue of the potential reduction from 250 kg to 220 kg, what exactly will that carry in the catchment area? If the harbour in Waterford is in bother does that mean that Tipperary, Kilkenny, Waterford, Laois, Carlow and Kildare will be all affected? These are the questions that have not been answered, even though the regulation is on its way.

There is a whole challenge around eutrophication. How much of it comes from agriculture and how much of it comes from elsewhere? That is a challenge that is out there, as are the effects that this is likely to have on our industry. We have given various different examples throughout the presentation, but the two changes, which are the cow banding and the potential move down to 220 kg will see that 30 ha farmer actually reducing his or her cow numbers by 22. That is a 26% reduction. That is huge at a time when farmers have invested heavily, borrowed heavily with the potential to make their payments. This will be the difference between farmers making a financial payment or not. I guarantee the committee, just as night follows day, that farm organisations will be back here in four , five and six years’ time with financial pressures on farms as a result of these. That is why the challenge is out there for us all, and indeed for this committee in particular, to drive home the message that we need time to deliver the changes that have been implemented at farm level.

Another example of restraint and restriction is the slurry export rules and the volume has to double in order to remain within the same query. Do the nitrogen and the phosphorus double in the tank over a period of time? Did I miss something on New Years Day? I do not say that lightly, because it is a huge issue. What is necessary, and we have looked for this at the Food Vision group on dairy, is that an economic assessment should be carried out on the impact on farm families and, indeed, the wider rural and national economy as a result of these changes. We need to see proper supports in place, including a meaningful ACRES scheme, because the solutions are within. Yet, the more farmers that can be brought into an agri-environmental scheme in a meaningful way, the better. We look forward to a question-and-answer session, but the issue here is the survival of the intensive, modest family farm unit that is severely undermined by this nitrates change.