Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I apologise for having to leave the meeting; we had a voting block.

I have read the witnesses' opening statements closely and at the outset record my appreciation that the witnesses have come before the committee. As has been stated, this is the agriculture committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas and we are biased towards agriculture. That is the nature of the composition of the committee.

Personally, I am a derogation farmer and I am one of the lucky ones in that the next generation in my family is taking up farming and going into partnership with me. In the main, however, if the younger generation are told that they will have to reduce their stock by 30%, no one is going to take up that mantle. The average age of a dairy farmer is 59 and if young people are told that there will be a contracting industry, that will bring its own economic problems and huge economic pressure.

Obviously, getting the issue of water quality right is essential. I accept that fully and I wish to be clear on that. However, since I have returned to this committee meeting, farming systems across the Continent have been referred to a number of times. They are virtually all indoor. If water quality on the Continent is looked at, and if one goes to a farm on the Continent, the water quality is a long way behind our water quality. We are sustainable producers of food in this country and this model must be maintained. In the comfort of our well-off society that we are privileged to live in, we completely forget about food security. However, as we sit here this evening, there are probably a billion people in the world starving and unfortunately, that figure is increasing across the world because of climate change, wars and so forth. In Africa, that figure is increasing rapidly. We have a part to play in ensuring that this food security balance is somewhat kept in check. The world will have a huge problem in feeding its population in the future and a sustainable production of food definitely has to go ahead. To me, putting all cattle indoors is most definitely not the answer. If the sums are done on the emissions on feeding those cattle indoors and the amount of diesel and so on that are used in the production of maize to feed those cattle, I believe that it would be found that an indoor system definitely would not compare favourably with ours in the battle against climate change.

This committee has decided and agreed to put forward a report on this and we welcome the environmental groups' input into that. We will take on board carefully everything that the witnesses have said this evening. There will be other scientific groups before this committee in the next couple of weeks and some of them will argue with assumptions the witnesses have made in their reports. Doctors differ and patients die. Other environmental and agriculture scientists will appear before the committee and will disagree fundamentally with some of the assumptions on nitrogen leaching and what can be done on farms. The witnesses have made their points and obviously they have researched them. However, I believe farmers in general will be extremely disappointed. To take multispecies swards, for example, they have been pushed by all researchers as a serious vehicle to try to get the balance right in our sustainable production to significantly reduce our chemical nitrogen use and obviously to improve water quality as a result. I am not saying the witnesses are wrong but I am saying others will come in and argue on this matter.

While I am not a scientist, I find it extremely interesting to see that the witnesses have it rated so low on the ability to reduce nitrogen and the nitrates leaching. A lot of research has gone into it and there is a huge amount of interest by farmers in multispecies swards. It is the same with protected urea. Again, it is very costly to the farmer. It probably costs €60 to €70 more per tonne than conventional urea. Farmers who bought that believed they were doing the right thing and that it was seriously helping the battle on water quality and emissions, etc. As for low emission slurry spreading, costly equipment was bought and it was made an obligation for derogation farmers to do it. Some of the witnesses have been very clear that while it might do something, its contribution is very small. If I read An Taisce correctly, it is putting the blame completely on stocking rates and suggesting that stocking rates are really the only contributor to the decline of water quality. I visited a pilot project last winter and as Senator Lombard probably talked about this in my absence, I apologise if I am repeating what he said but Timoleague has this project going on testing water for a number of years in an area of the country that has by far the highest ratio of derogation farmers. They were emphatic in their belief that an adjustment of the stocking rate would not have any impact on nitrates and that there are other corrective measures that would get water quality onto the path we all want to see it go. I am not trying to be argumentative and I fully appreciate the witnesses coming in and making their presentations. I expect we will have other groups coming in with scientific evidence that will not agree with everything the witnesses here have said.

I make no bones about wanting to see derogation preserved. It is hugely important economically to this country. It is hugely important to rural Ireland. Dairying is the driving economic force of rural Ireland and reducing from 250 kg N/ha to 220 kg N/ha is bringing a huge amount of hardship. As I think Deputy Mythen mentioned, large farmers will possibly survive but the average dairy farm is 90 cows in size and if those farmers are forced to reduce by whatever percentage, the viability of the whole then comes under serious scrutiny. Some of the witnesses talked about support from ACRES, etc. Part of the county I represent is in hen harrier designation. I have never seen anything done at the stroke of a pen that has devalued a person's property as much as hen harrier designation. The capital value of that land is reduced by 80% with virtually no compensation to the landowners. When the designation came in first, there was a relatively good scheme for about two to three years for farmers in the hen harrier area but that scheme has disappeared. What farmers get out of it now is a pittance. If they wanted to sell their land - land that for afforestation would be worth €7,000 to €8,000 per hectare at current values - they would probably make €1,500 per hectare. As a farmer, when I hear farmers will get compensated for restoration, etc., coming in, I do not believe it because it has never happened before. I do not believe it will happen now. Regarding those farmers with designated land, I have never seen property values allowed to be decimated so much with no compensation. I am not talking about the benefits of the designation but what happened to individual landowners in that area. Restoration sends a shiver up my spine. I am not saying it will not bring benefits but it sends a shiver up my spine because I know private landowners will again carry the burden of that without getting proper compensation.

We had the National Parks and Wildlife Service in here before Christmas and its representatives also gave us a very good presentation. They told us the land restoration would not be mandatory for any landowner but under questioning it was confirmed that you will not get your single farm payment if you do not comply. As it might not be mandatory, they would be leaving you without any money, so it was going to be mandatory. That is where farmers are coming from and that is the fear farmers have. Farmers have spent an awful lot of money on their farmyards, etc., and in trying to get their infrastructure correct to reduce pollution.

I remember there was a major scheme in 2007 and 2008 where a significant amount of extra storage was added to farms and that had a substantial impact on water quality at that time. Personally as a farmer, I feel that extra storage is essential. We have to be able to hold slurry and spread it at the correct time. When slurry is spread and you get heavy rainfall shortly after spreading it, you only have to look in the stream in the days after to see the impact of that. I cannot believe that this does not have a serious impact on water quality even though some witnesses are saying that it does not. I find it hard to weigh those things together, as a farmer on the ground. When you get heavy rain this time of the year when slurry has been spread you see the impact on the water.

As Chairman of this committee, I really appreciate the witnesses coming in and giving comprehensive presentations. I do not agree with all that has been said but it would be a bad world if we all agreed with everything. One thing is clear; we all have the one objective. We want an improvement in water quality. From my point of view, we want to do that and maintain our sustainable agriculture. That is where I am coming from and what I want to achieve. As a committee we want to put together a report that will make recommendations that hopefully will add something to help us to achieve that. From that viewpoint, we welcome the presentations of the witnesses here today. I did not ask any questions and made more of a statement but I think the other members have covered the questions fairly comprehensively.