Mr. Tim Cullinan:

I thank the Chair and committee members for inviting IFA here today. Before I commence my statement I also want to put on the record that I am aware that the committee had a long session this morning. The EPA is not our enemy in this particular episode and we are not here to undermine anybody. We are, however, very concerned about the consequences of losing the derogation with the impact that would have and the devastation it would cause to our sector.

Both the environmental and economic sustainability of Irish agriculture are underpinned by our temperate climate which allows us to produce beef and dairy produce from pasture. Some 92% of all agricultural land in Ireland is grassland, compared with an EU average of 31%. Our grass-based system is unique in Europe where livestock is typically reared indoors. Irish agriculture is dominated by small to medium-sized family farms, with an average farm size of 33 ha. The average stocking rate - that is, livestock units per hectare - is 1.3 units per hectare and 2.1 units per hectare for dairy herds. That is relatively low compared to other EU countries including the Netherlands which has 3.4 units, Malta which has 3.2 units and Belgium has 2.7 units per hectare.

Ireland avails of a nitrates derogation to maximise the amount of pasture utilised in livestock production systems. The justification for having the derogation in Ireland is based on objective criteria, such as the long growing season, which ranges from 330 days per year in the south west to approximately 250 days per year in the north east, and the high yields of grass with high nitrogen uptake. Article 12 of the Commission’s implementing decision of 29 April 2022 that granted Ireland a derogation included the requirement to conduct a review of water quality for the two years 2021 and 2022 to take place in 2023. The review was to determine maximum stocking rate thresholds based on nitrates concentrations, eutrophic status and their respective trends. This condition was introduced without consultation with stakeholders and will have a significant economic impact on derogation farmers' livelihoods and will deliver negligible improvements to water quality.

The competitive advantage of grass-based systems is based on maximising grass utilisation. Where the stocking rate is not sufficient relative to pasture growth potential on a farm, it will result in lower grass utilisation, lower sward quality and reduced animal performance. The imposition of a lower organic nitrogen limit per hectare could move farmers away from pasture-based systems to a higher input system with more feed bought in, in an attempt to maintain milk output from the farm. Annex 1 of the EPA's Water Quality Monitoring Report on Nitrogen and Phosphorus Concentrations in Irish waters 2022 addresses Article 12 and the red map was created to satisfy the Commission's assessment framework. The IFA rightly called out the red map as nonsensical, which it is. This is not a criticism of the EPA, but a criticism of the framework it was requested by the Commission to use when categorising areas for a reduced stocking rate threshold. Those who have studied this beyond the headlines understand that targeting agricultural maps are the EPA's preferred option for targeted actions.

Since the publication of Article 12, the IFA has consistently outlined the flaws associated with its measurement of water quality to determine stocking rate thresholds. Most notably, an assessment time of two years is too short to assess trends as it ignores the reality of lag times. Lag times are the delay between the time when a particular agricultural practice or activity occurs and the time when its impact on water quality is observed. This delay is due to a range of factors, including the time it takes for nutrients to move through the soil and into groundwater; the time it takes for groundwater to move through the aquifer; and the time it takes for monitoring data to be collected and analysed. As a consequence, it can be difficult to attribute changes in water quality to specific agricultural practices or activities, as the effects of individual practices or activities accumulate over years or decades. It is therefore not possible to make meaningful conclusions about national or regional trends based on a limited number of monitoring sites over a short-term period of two or three years. These delays must be quantified in order to establish realistic deadlines, thresholds and policy expectations and to design effective best management practices.

The eutrophic status of a water body is impacted by a multitude of pressures and associated nutrients. Improving its status is dependent on a variety of measures and not only a reduction in stocking rate. In addition, the nitrates directive requires the eutrophic status of surface, estuary and coastal waters to be measured every four years, while the Commission decision insists that a comparison be made between 2021 and 2022.

This is not consistent.

A reduced stocking rate threshold of 220 kg N/ha would have a negligible impact on water quality. It is modelled by Teagasc to reduce nitrate loss to 1 m soil depth by 2.2 kg N/ha. However, due to Ireland's heterogenous landscape, its contribution to catchments with be variable and inconsistent. While its benefit to water quality is questionable, the economic impact of the reduction is guaranteed. The IFA estimates that the loss to the rural economy will likely be €236 million. However, the impact it will have on the impacted family farms will be much more devastating.

Given that our estuaries capture significantly large catchment areas and pressures, the use of their status to determine stocking rate thresholds is not valid as it ignores the contribution of wastewater treatment plants and other pressures to declining water status. A total of 27% of transitional water bodies - estuaries and coastal lagoons - are at risk of not achieving good status and are impacted equally by the combined effects of urban wastewater and runoff, which is 40%, and agriculture, which is 43%.

In excess of 30 measures have been included in the nitrates directive since 2018 and need to be given time to demonstrate improvements. Of critical importance, the introduction of banding and its impact on stocking rates was only introduced in 2023 and hence this very costly measure adopted by farmers is ignored within Article 12.

Recognising the seriousness of the issue, an IFA delegation met with the nitrates unit of the European Commission in February to outline our concerns relating to the details of Article 12. Subsequently, the IFA made a submission to the Commission that has been made available to this committee for today’s meeting as appendix 1. In March, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine reflected on our concerns and informed the Seanad that he would be seeking further flexibility on Article 12. This flexibility needs to be obtained as a matter of urgency.

It is worth pointing out that, in the past two months, the Minister has put together an agriculture water quality working group to which he has consistently referred since its establishment. This group is in its infancy, with its fourth meeting held yesterday, and may well prove to be a very useful vehicle in helping protect water quality in the medium term. However, the current issue relating to a possible reduction to 220 kg organic N is far too pressing and urgent to hand over to a working group formed in the past six weeks.

The most recent national farm survey data reveal that the average dairy farmer, who is most affected by any changes to the derogation, has €127,477 of bank borrowings, with 77% of this classed as medium to long-term debt. This debt is typically present on younger farmers whose repayment capacity is based on the premise that a 250 kg organic N limit is applicable. If a 220 kg N/ha stocking rate threshold is introduced, it will likely place some of these farms in financial jeopardy. How could we agree to more costly measures when we find our farmers in this space?

Farmers are very aware of their responsibility towards protecting water quality and have made significant investments on their farms to mitigate their pressure on local catchments. An assessment of water quality must be scientifically robust, fair and justified. Article 12's assessment of water quality is not scientifically robust. It is not fair or justified, yet it will have massive ramifications for the entire agricultural sector. The IFA is seeking an immediate resolution by the Minister to Article 12 and the exploration of alternative measures that can improve water quality without decimating farm families. I will now hand over to our hydrogeologist and water expert, Mr. Shane Herlihy.