Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Wednesday, 21 February 2024
Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Compliance with the Nitrates Directive and Implications for Ireland: Discussion (Resumed)
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Apologies have been received from Deputies Kehoe and Collins. Deputy Whitmore has stated she will attend later. I remind members and witnesses to turn off their mobile phones.
Before we begin, I bring the following to their attention: witnesses giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that they have a full defence in any defamation action in respect of anything they say at the meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed by the Chair to cease giving evidence on an issue. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair 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 want to give evidence from locations outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts. They may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses, outside of the 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 House 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 at a committee meeting when that participation is within the parliamentary precincts. Members may not participate online in a public meeting from outside the parliamentary precincts and any attempt to do so will result in said member having his or her online access removed.
The purpose of today's meeting is to resume our discussion on the continual examination of compliance with the nitrates directive and the implications for Ireland. From An Taisce, we are joined by Dr. Elaine McGoff, head of advocacy, Professor John Sweeney, Professor Emeritus at Maynooth University and member of An Taisce's climate committee, and Mr. Ian Lumley, heritage officer. From Coastwatch, we are joined by Ms Karin Dubsky, director and Ms Bernie Connolly, regional co-ordinator. From BirdWatch Ireland, we are joined by Ms Oonagh Duggan, head of advocacy, and Mr. Paul Moore, member of BirdWatch Ireland and tillage and beef farmer. All of the witnesses are very welcome.
The opening statements have been circulated to members. I will allow witnesses five minutes to read their opening statements. We will start An Taisce and then go to Coastwatch and BirdWatch Ireland. We will then proceed to our question-and-answer session. I ask the witnesses from An Taisce to make their opening statement.
Dr. Elaine McGoff:
I thank the committee for the invitation to attend. I am Dr. Elaine McGoff. I am the head of advocacy with An Taisce. I am joined by Professor Sweeney and Mr. Lumley.
The starting point for any discussion on nitrates and the nitrates derogation must be an acknowledgement that nitrates from dairy farming are negatively impacting water quality, both surface and groundwater, and that we need a different approach to mitigate that impact. In 2021, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, identified several catchments of concern for elevated nitrogen concentrations in the south and south-east, including the River Bandon, River Slaney, River Lee and the River Tolka and River Liffey catchments.
Of these ten catchments, urban wastewater was the main nitrate pressure in only one, the Tolka-Liffey catchment. While tillage can also contribute to nitrate loss, data has shown that even in some of the most tillage-heavy catchments, such as the Barrow and Slaney catchments, only 28% and 27% respectively of the nitrate was attributable to arable farming. Most nitrogen in identified problem catchments for nitrate came from pasture-based agriculture.
Where is the nitrogen coming from? There is a clear and well-established link between surplus, unused nitrogen and the nitrate leached to water in free-draining soils. As shown in the chart, figure 2 in my opening submission, the greater the surplus nitrogen, the greater the leaching shown. Therefore, it follows logically that if we want to reduce nitrate leached to water, we need to reduce the surplus nitrogen that drives the pollution.
In figure 3 of my opening submission, members will see that dairy methane and nitrogen excretion rates are strongly, and in some cases almost linearly, related to milk yield per cow. In other words, as milk production goes up, there is a direct increase in nitrates, ammonia and methane emissions.
What about existing measures to prevent nitrogen leaching? A fundamental point which needs to be well understood by anyone working in this area is that not all water quality measures are effective for all pollutants. In an Irish context, the main pollutants from agriculture to water are phosphorus, nitrogen and sediment. There can be a tendency to assume that measures designed to mitigate other pollutants, such as phosphorus, sediment or ammonia are equally effective at addressing nitrate. This is frequently not the case. For example, if landowners in one of the catchments of concern for nitrate wanted to mitigate the nitrate run-off from their farms, they might rely on the use of low emission slurry spreading, LESS, protected urea or extended buffer zones. These measures, while valid and useful for phosphorus, ammonia and sediment mitigation, are not particularly effective for reducing nitrate loss. They would not be a good use of time or resources, if the main aim was to address nitrate losses to water. This is well illustrated in table 1 in my submission, which I took from the Waters of LIFE project, which assessed the efficacy of different agricultural measures for nitrates. Of note in this table is that the only highly ranked measure for nitrate mitigation is reducing the nitrate load, for example through a reduction in livestock units per hectare. To emphasise this point, Teagasc modelling also demonstrated that urine patches from cattle at pasture can be responsible for as much as 63% of nitrate leached. Only 29% of the nitrate loss was attributable to artificial fertiliser and just 8% was attributable to slurry. Again, I have provided a graph from Teagasc research, figure 2, which shows that quite clearly.
To put it simply, where nitrate is the pollutant of concern, compliance regarding slurry spreading and storage, while obviously desirable from a broader environmental perspective, will have relatively limited benefits in catchments where we have a serious nitrogen problem. We are all familiar with the phrase "the right measures, in the right place" for water quality protection, but while we have made significant progress on this when it comes to measures for phosphate and sediment, we are still failing to apply the correct measures when it comes to nitrate. Many farmers are willingly putting measures in place on their farms, but frequently they are not measures designed to adequately address nitrate leaching. In many cases we are seeing a nitrate problem with phosphate solutions.
How should we address this? With this science in mind, we need a catchment-based approach, with measures tailored at the catchment scale, based on the in-stream load for that catchment. More dramatic measures will be needed in some catchments than in others. As outlined earlier, nitrate leachate reductions are achieved primarily through reducing the surplus nitrate in a given catchment. Where we have catchments requiring relatively modest nitrate decreases, for example the Suir, the Blackwater and the Lee, the decrease of the derogation limit from 250 to 220 kg N/ha/yr may get us a fair way towards the necessary reduction in the nitrate load. However, where we have catchments with far higher levels of in-stream nitrate load, for example in the Barrow and the Slaney where there is 50% too much nitrogen going into the catchments, we will need far greater nitrogen load reductions, well over and above what will be provided by the drop from 250 to 220 kg N/ha.
Irish farmers, especially derogation farmers currently, are being asked to jump through a growing number of environmental hoops at their own cost. It is imperative that they can be confident that the measures they put in place will actually address the environmental problem at hand. I can tell you that based on the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and Teagasc science, I have little confidence that the existing measures will work sufficiently for nitrate. The systemic failure by the State to implement a tailored catchment-based approach, based on the best available science, is setting farmers up to fail and it is also setting water quality up to fail. Farmers, more than anyone, need honesty. Their livelihood is on the line. The truth is, the majority of the existing measures they are putting in place will not be effective for adequately reducing nitrogen and will not reverse the water quality trends we have been seeing in the south and south east. Farmers should be told that from the outset, not sold false promises, because ultimately, the water quality does not lie and the European Commission has already indicated it will take little else into account.
Ms Karin Dubsky:
My piece is possibly slightly too long. I am Karin Dubsky from Coastwatch and I am accompanied by Bernadette Connolly from Cork. Members have my opening statement, so I will jump through it, except to say we have worked for decades with farmers and other citizens on citizen science to try to give power and knowledge to citizens so they can understand and be part of the solution. We will only deal with questions three to six.
Question three was whether it is possible to maintain the nitrate derogation at the current level, while ensuring there is an improvement. Perhaps it is possible, but it is not probable. The reasons are very much in line with what Dr. McGoff said. With climate change, we cannot predict the weather. The improvements in water quality we now need are so onerous that fiddling with it will not work. We need a really massive action if we are to comply with the water framework directive by 2027. The time is tight. The task is huge.
Question four is whether the nitrates action programme is fit for purpose in protecting Ireland's water quality. To say "not quite" would be generous. While it includes lots of good ingredients, it is like cooking a cake with lots of good ingredients at the wrong temperature. It is not working. It is too complicated. People cannot follow it. Even if you read the instructions of how to do it eight times, even in the Irish Farmers Journal, which I bought a copy of, you will not be able to follow them.
Are additional supports required to ensure farmers can comply with the nitrates action programme? The answer is a wholehearted "Yes". We propose the committee thinks of it as a two-lane process. The main lane is for most farmers who will be told that this is no-derogation time and that the Government will help them to have a low fertiliser input. That help is needed because the headache farmers now have in trying to follow more and more prescriptions is leading to more and more upset in the farming community. Farmers need to know what they are doing. They need to be able to assess their waters. They do not all need to be able to kick sample streams and be ecologists, but they need to be able to use a simple nitrate test, like we do in Coastwatch. We provided a two-page handout on the kind of results we are finding. These tests are simple to use. You open the test, dip it and then you have the result. When I have finished speaking I will demonstrate.
Farmers also need to know how best to protect their waters from nitrates. They have to be able to see and to reduce the stocking rates. Then they will already see an improvement. They need to be able to value their nature-based solutions and to also be able to get money for reed beds and waters which help to control silt and nutrients. They need to be integrated into catchment management plans and other incentives so they are not on their own.
They are not on their own; farmers are part of the community and they need support to enable the transition from higher stocking rates, such as a cow retirement scheme.
Lane 2 would be for farmers who insist on derogation. There will be considerably fewer of them if this is the choice given. For those, we need a very strict transparent scheme where we know who the derogation farmers are and what the conditions are. The enforcement needs to be top class. For that we can also have a citizen science.
Are any additional resources required to ensure the measures required by the nitrates action programme are adequately enforced? In the lane 1 it is very much like in the olden days where people helped each other and nudged each other to best practice. In lane 2 it is very much prescription. People very much do their job and the onus is on the authority to make sure it advises the right measures, and that they watch it and adapt when needed. It does not wait for years and just watch the water pollution continuing.
At the moment where there are predictions of failure, where a farmer has full slurry tanks, where the season is closed or where there is lots of rain, that farmer is in a terrible position. As an environmentalist, I have received phone calls asking what they are to do. They need help and that needs to be sorted urgently. I am not coming with a solution there, but it must be sorted. We cannot leave a farmer in that fix when no matter what he does he is lost. Farmers with derogation do not get grants for extra slurry tanks. I am not saying that they should because that would drive them further down the intensive route. It must be acknowledged that this is a real problem today. Telling local authorities to enforce something where they know the heartache involved, which the farmer does, not seem fair.
Ms Oonagh Duggan:
I thank the Cathaoirleach, Deputies and Senators for the invitation to present the views of BirdWatch Ireland on aspects of the 2022 nitrates action programme, NAP. We intend to focus specifically on the changes in the programme relating to arable land and winter stubbles given effect by the good agricultural practice regulations as amended and our concerns for wild bird species as a result of these changes.
From an overarching perspective, BirdWatch Ireland is very concerned with the poor and declining status of many of Ireland’s water bodies. Good water quality is not only critical for human consumption, but many wild bird species also need it as part of their life cycle. On 9 May 2019, Dáil Éireann declared a biodiversity as well as a climate emergency. It is critical that when proposing solutions to address one environmental problem, we do not create another one or make one worse.
The 2022 change to the nitrates action programme required tillage farmers in 14 counties to shallow cultivate soils post harvest and to eliminate 75% to 80% of their winter stubbles to reduce nitrate loss to water bodies. Stubbles are the six inches of stalk left after harvest of a crop on arable land. Seed is often spilled and left in the fields during the harvesting process and becomes a winter food source for wild bird species like linnet, goldfinch, and skylark. Birds of prey such as hen harrier, barn owl and kestrel are known to forage over winter stubbles and prey on the small birds and mammals. This has been a positive farmer-bird relationship for as long as arable crops have been cultivated. Stubbles do not equal bare soil and the seeds on top of the soil often green up during the winter period without any cultivation. Shallow cultivation results in seeds being turned into the soil making them completely unavailable to wild birds but the seed germination absorbs nitrogen that would otherwise be lost from the soil to the environment.
BirdWatch Ireland is very seriously concerned about this requirement because of the effects the measure could have on wild bird species many of which are already red- or amber-listed birds of conservation concern. BirdWatch Ireland staff engaged with both the Department of agriculture and the Department of housing on this requirement and sent a submission outlining the evidence in the scientific literature of the importance of winter stubbles for birds.
Between 1998 and 2021 there has been a 45% increase in the number of farmland birds on the red list of birds of conservation concern in Ireland. Most of these species were once common and widespread. These include birds of arable farmland like the yellowhammer. It is important to state that one bird of arable land in Ireland already became extinct, the corn bunting.
A recent satellite tracking study of hen harriers in Ireland revealed a low first-year survival rate with only 17.7% of individuals in the study surviving to their first year. This study also showed how young hen harriers disperse after they leave the nest and the habitats they use. The findings appear to show that arable landscapes are important areas for young hen harriers in the early months of their independence. Together with dietary analysis, stubble fields appear to be an important habitat for autumn and winter foraging by hen harriers, likely contributing to the higher survival rate of birds that utilise these areas.
Article 6.3 of the habitats directive requires that a plan or project shall be subject to an appropriate assessment of its implications for the Natura site in view of the site's conservation objectives. We have not seen any published Government ecological assessment of the impacts of the green cover winter stubble measure on hen harrier special protected areas, or on sites important for other Annex 1 wintering birds as required by Article 6.3.
In addition, changes were made to Ireland’s CAP strategic plan at a very late stage in 2022 to reflect the new nitrates action programme rules but in this instance arable farmers anywhere in Ireland, and not just the farmers in the 14 counties listed in the NAP, are financially incentivised in the ACRES general winter stubble measure to shallow cultivate as per the nitrates action programme and to leave 20% to 25% winter stubble. Again, we have seen no evidence of any assessment of the ecological impacts of this change on wild birds especially protected bird species.
The Government's climate action plan for 2023 sets out a target to increase the area of tillage land in this country by 52,000 ha to 400,000 ha by 2030 and yet the national tillage area is known to be declining. More tillage would be a good thing and a potential win for birds too if managed appropriately. We have national targets and legal requirements for water, climate and biodiversity yet the green cover requirement, while potentially a good action to address nitrate leaching from arable land, could be devastating for wild birds. Government needs to ensure more joined-up thinking on how we are addressing the environmental problems we face to avoid serious unintended consequences.
We are calling on Government to amend the GAP regulations to rescind the shallow cultivation clause, until there is a proper assessment and consideration of the effects of such a change on our wild bird species. The research to understand the effects of these changes is just being initiated by Teagasc and it would make sense to wait until the findings are available to inform the policy as opposed to continuing with measures which are very likely damaging. I will now hand over to my colleague Paul Moore.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes.
Mr. Paul Moore:
My name is Paul Moore. I am a seventh-generation farmer living near Midleton in east Cork. Tillage and beef are my farm enterprises. I have been involved in wildlife conservation, mainly with BirdWatch Ireland in my spare time for over 30 years. I am one of the founders of the BRIDE project EIP and I have been a farming for nature ambassador since 2021. In 2022 I became aware of the proposal that arable farmers would have to shallow cultivate stubble fields shortly after harvest as part of the nitrates action programme.
This concerned me from a farming perspective as an added cost and extra workload at a critical and extremely busy time of year on farms when harvesting crops is our priority, and from a bird conservation perspective because I knew the value of cereal crop stubble as a winter farmland bird habitat, both from my own farm and from studies carried out elsewhere.
There has been very little research done in Ireland on how farmland birds use crops and fields during the year and nothing on the use of stubble. Once it became clear that the Department was going to implement this policy, I approached BirdWatch Ireland for scientific advice and then set about finding funding for a study on farms in east Cork. The study was funded by Irish Distillers in Midleton to which I supply grain and the South and East Cork Area Development Partnership through the LEADER programme. Additional support to locate survey farms was provided by Dairygold Co-op and the local east Cork Teagasc office.
We got a great response from local farmers - so much that we were not able to get to survey all the farms that contacted us. In the event over 80 sq. km was surveyed over the winter of 2022-23 by trained ecologists. The results show a clear indication that shallow cultivation, where the field is cultivated to a depth of three to four inches to encourage germination of the seeds in the soil to soak up nutrients, is a poor habitat for farmland birds.
If the practice continues, it will likely result in further losses in the number of threatened species, like the yellowhammer, the hen harrier, the linnet, the skylark, the greenfinch and the snipe, that use stubble fields on farms throughout the winter.
The final report has been made available to the committee. I will not summarise it. We mainly examined stubble, cover crops and shallow cultivation. By late winter, stubble and cover crops had retained their importance but shallow cultivation had not because it held very few birds at that stage. Teagasc recently commenced a study on the effects of shallow cultivation on farmland birds. By the time that is completed, the shallow cultivation requirement on tillage farms will have been in effect for six or seven years, with unknown but potentially severe impacts on farmland birds.
While improving water quality is a very important goal, attempting to solve one environmental problem by creating another is no solution at all. It makes no sense to propose a solution to address water quality which could worsen the biodiversity crisis but that is what we are facing as a result of these changes. Thousands of farmers have been working hard to support farmland birds through of a range of agri-environment schemes over the years. This change could negatively impact these efforts.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Mr. Moore.
Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses from the three organisations for coming before the committee today. We will, to a degree, be at loggerheads in that the vast majority of us here come from agricultural backgrounds, are steadfast in our support for the farming community and recognise the huge contribution farming has made to this country in the context of the livelihoods and education of so many people. That said, An Taisce's contribution has been very measured and is welcome. I will focus on that at the outset.
In the context of the derogation and the suggestion by Dr. McGoff on what Teagasc dairy advisers are being advised to say, what is this based on?
Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Reference was made to planning for no derogation. Is Dr. McGoff of the view that there should not be a derogation?
Dr. Elaine McGoff:
No, not necessarily. If we look at the water quality trends or the stance of the Commission - and I was in that meeting last November with the Commissioner - it very clear they are not willing to give us any wriggle room. Given the massive financial and social implications if we lose this derogation, it would be reckless of the Government not to start to put a plan in place in case this happens. What happens when Ireland is looking for another derogation in 2026? If the Commission says "No", we will have a whole other cohort of farmers who will be facing what farmers this year faced when they went from 250 kg to 220 kg N/ha per year. Maybe I am wrong but from my perspective it looked like a rather chaotic and not very well planned transition with no effective communication. All I am saying is that whether it comes to pass or not let us have a plan in place. That is just good planning.
Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I do not know whether farmers would be surprised or happy, but they will agree that they are being asked to jump through a growing number of environmental hoops at their own cost.
Dr. McGoff is suggesting that the Department should be asked to provide an evidence base to demonstrate that the measures being put in place under the nitrates action programme will be sufficient for reducing the nitrates land. Clearly, she does not believe that they are. On nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution, which is the worst of the three evils?
Dr. Elaine McGoff:
Nitrates pollution is the one that is really worrying at the moment because it is ramping up. When I started looking at water quality 20 years ago, phosphate pollution was the problem. The answer is neither because they are both a problem but when it comes to nitrate it is disimproving quite dramatically year on year. The EPA is normally quite measured, but it is coming out with statements saying that there have been alarming declines in the water quality in estuaries. Phosphates are still a problem but nitrate is more pressing.
With regard to providing the basis on which measures will work, I say this because Teagasc kept showing that a drop from 250 to 220 kg N/ha per year will only lead to a saving of some 4 kg of nitrogen per hectare. If they can do that modelling then why can they not do the modelling to show us how much we would have to drop. The EPA has told us how much nitrogen we need to reduce in those ten catchments of concern. Can Teagasc not model that? Why not? The answer would be scary for certain farmers in certain catchments but at least let us have that honesty and that discussion.
Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What Dr. McGoff has to say is interesting in the context of the measures farmers are taking. They may believe they are doing something to mitigate against the impact of nitrogen, but what they are doing is having an impact on the other two influencers. This is probably a worst-case scenario for An Taisce, but it is a hypothetical question: if Dr. McGoff was not with An Taisce but rather with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, what measures would she put in place-----
Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
-----for everything to run in tandem. Hypothetically, let us say we have our derogation and it stays as it is. What measures would Dr. McGoff put in place to reduce the impact?
Dr. Elaine McGoff:
The first thing I would do is look at the science and engage in an honest assessment of what the impact is going to be. There is a certain amount of fudging, although that sounds like too strong a word. There is a lack of honesty about what we are achieving with the measures that are being put in place. If the derogation was going to stay I am not of the view that the derogation and good water quality are mutually exclusive. There are some catchments where nitrates are not a problem, and derogations could very well exist there. We must, however, come back to the basic science and the catchment picture. Like all rivers, it can only take a certain amount of nitrogen. We can start from there. It can take that amount of nitrogen, so how are we going to divvy it up. That is a political decision. It is potentially a toxic political decision, but we must start with the ecological reality that there is only so much nitrogen that a catchment can take.
Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Dr. McGoff is giving a good political answer, but are there specific measures that we should be taking?
Dr. Elaine McGoff:
One has to look at reducing the surplus nitrogen in the catchments of concern. The surplus nitrogen must be reduced. Given that most of the nitrogen is coming from the cattle when they are out at pasture, the logical solution is to reduce the stocking density. There are other measures that could be taken to reduce it, such as using less fertilizer and slurry. As Teagasc has shown, the efficacy of such measures will be far less. Approximately 8% of the nitrogen comes from slurry. Even if we got rid of all the slurry, this would not be enough in the really problematic catchments.
Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
On the point about staffing for inspections, Dr. McGoff works in this field. It is her area of expertise. Are there people there to fill those roles?
Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In the context of graduates coming out of the colleges at the moment, will there be people to fill those roles?
Dr. Elaine McGoff:
I think there are. They might need to be trained in. Ecological consultants are crying out for staff. They are finding it really hard. A similar skill set would be needed for these inspection roles. If we were willing to give the time to training them up, we would find them. Many people are interested in this area anyway.
Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am from Longford, which is a county with no coastline, but I appreciate all the work that is done by Coastwatch. I am fiercely defensive about the nitrates derogation. I accept the Coastwatch view that it does not find any favour with it. Again, in the hypothetical scenario that we have to live with it, what measures should we be taking?
Ms Karin Dubsky:
I worked on an EIP project with derogation farmers. There was definitely some improvement when wetlands were included. One example involved a farm on hilly land. Between soil, silt and phosphates, the level of nitrates coming down the hill after rain was significant. The farmer put in a series of ponds and other wetlands. At the end of the EIP, which was very affordable and was the smallest of all EIPs, there were fewer nitrates coming out of his farm. Additionally, he had massively increased biodiversity on the property. The whole amount relating to the EIP was less than €50,000. There were five of us involved and we worked with different landowners. This is definitely one thing we would do. We also have a biodiversity crisis and we need to tackle the two together. It has to be done by everyone together. Farmers are just one part. If the sewage treatment plant in an area is not working properly, then we would not get anywhere either.
Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
On the point about it being over-prescriptive and about the control of land, there is an administrative burden for farmers. Is there an alternative to that? We are searching for an alternative to the way that we are doing it at the moment.
Ms Karin Dubsky:
Yes, there is. From working in the EIP, I realised the difference. When you ask farmers what they would do, they keep coming up with ideas because they are focused on the end result, which is increasing biodiversity and improving water quality. It is about changing it to a goal, rather than how to dance around all the prescriptions. Most farmers remember as kids when they caught sticklebacks in their streams. Some of them catch sea trout or whatever else, where I live. It is about bringing the focus onto the water and away from the prescriptive. Farmers, like fishermen, are used to doing their own thing. We are ramming them in the wrong direction at the moment by almost acting like secretaries.
Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am conscious of the time. Where was that EIP on which you worked?
Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I just have a final for Mr. Moore of BirdWatch Ireland. It relates to the project on which he worked. It is interesting to hear the experience of a real farmer here. He is also a farmer for nature campaigner. In relation to the stubble issue, is there an economic impact for farmers in what they prefer to do as opposed to what they are being told to do?
Mr. Paul Moore:
Yes. As I said, the rules currently provide that farmers have two weeks to shallow cultivate after harvesting, assuming the straw is gone. Any farmer will know, you cannot farm by the calendar and say that it will be done within two weeks. It could rain for two weeks after the harvest. What is the farmer supposed to do in that case? If you dig wet soil, nothing will grow. I have walked a great many shallow cultivated fields with this project and elsewhere. I would say that probably 50% of the supposedly shallow cultivated fields had no green cover because nothing grew afterwards. It was just three or four inches of mucky, wet soil on the surface.
Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Finally, in regard to the shallow cultivated fields, if we were not doing that, would there be an impact on crop yields and crop value?
Mr. Paul Moore:
Is the Deputy referring to the subsequent crop? I do not believe that has been looked at. There will certainly be leaching out of a field that has no green cover and has been shallow cultivated because there is loose soil on the top. Cover crops are probably a better compromise but that has an additional cost to the farmer.
Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Lovely. We have a vote in the Chamber.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Will Senator Lombard take the Chair? Thank you. We will be back after the vote.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does Ms Connolly wish to come in?
Ms Bernie Connolly:
I will pick up on the comment about climate change. We know there have been lower volumes of milk this year and in the recent past. There is an issue when the flows in rivers are lower. There will be higher concentrations, which also has an impact. There are other issues, such as the very wet winter we had, which caused huge problems for storage. The system needs to change because it is completely geared towards an intensification model. There is huge land-use pressure. Many ageing farmers are going out of beef, which was less intensive, but their land is being leased to more intensive models. This actually increases the pressure which adds to the difficulties. There are many conflicts within that system. On the one hand, in the agri-food sector they are buying milk but selling fertiliser. They are giving incentives on their sustainability criteria for using protected urea. Some of those are contradictory measures. They need to be looked at because they are part of the issue for nitrate.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Deputy Fitzmaurice, the floor is yours.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for coming in. I will address Ms Connolly on the land use question. The big problem is that land use pressure is going to get worse because of the nature restoration law. In forestry, we are aiming at 8,000 ha per year, even though we are not near that. Under the changes in the derogation, dairy farmers will be down from 250 kg N/ha to 220 kg N/ha and will be looking for more land. I could also mention different things like tillage and solar farms. Given that more land is not being made, the pressure will get worse. I presume all the witnesses agree with the report that 50% of our waters are good, or at a high ecological status. Do they accept that?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does Ms Connolly agree that 50% is at good or high status? That is the report we got.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes, we just want to try to balance it as much as possible. My next question is for the witnesses from An Taisce, who might educate me on this. I am going through the chart on the effectiveness of agricultural measures. If I have read it wrongly, they might correct me. It is saying, and I think it is agreed, that less nitrogen on land is better. Is that fair to say? Why are mixed-species grasses, which everyone is promoting, down as low? Am I reading it right?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is Dr. McGoff saying that mixed-species grasses are not a good thing?
Dr. Elaine McGoff:
They are. It depends on what you are looking at. They are a good thing because you are not importing synthetic fertiliser and you do not have the climate emissions from synthetic fertiliser. They are often better for cattle health because the cattle are eating more diverse grass. It depends on what lens it is seen through. However, from a purely nitrate perspective, no, they are not great for nitrate.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In regard to liming, everyone would believe that you would actually reduce fertiliser if you have the pH right. Why is that not a good thing?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Right. How would soil testing be better than liming? Soil tests only tell you how your soil's pH health is.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I was looking at the table and I was afraid I was reading it wrong. I was taken aback because all governments throughout Europe are promoting mixed-species grasses and everyone, even scientists, are saying it is a good thing.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This contradicts it in terms of lime and nitrogen.
Dr. Elaine McGoff:
My point is that measures that are good for some things are not necessarily good for all things. Let us come at it from a place of honesty. If farmers who are putting this in place are believing they are doing great things for nitrate, they deserve to know that it is not going to do great things for nitrate. It is still a positive measure but if you are only looking at it through this lens - if nitrate is your only interest - it is not going to be very effective.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Deputy Flaherty asked earlier what the solution would be. I did not hear the representatives of An Taisce saying that the likes of anaerobic digestion would be a solution. Would they agree with that?
Professor John Sweeney:
Certainly there are some aspects of anaerobic digestion which are very positive. A lot of work needs to be done still on issues such as methane leakage, which is now emerging as an issue for anaerobic digesters.
There is also an issue on the land take and the Deputy mentioned that land will become a dwindling commodity in the future. The current biomethane strategy is looking for 120,000 ha of land to be used for growing inputs for anaerobic digesters. That has implications in how one grows that grass and whether that grass can grow in the absence of fertilisation, for example. There are issues on the digestate. It is an area which needs a little bit more teasing out but I do not see it as the solution.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What would Professor Sweeney’s thoughts be on the slurry part of anaerobic digestion? A statement was made earlier that if one gives people a derogation or a grant, this would intensify this activity to a greater extent. If one is down to 220 kg N/ha in one's nitrates, one cannot intensify because everything is gone and one cannot go above a certain threshold. The issue, however, is the people caught between 170 kg N/ha and 220 kg N/ha. They need to ensure slurry storage. One cannot intensify more because if one is at 219 kg N/ha, one is at one's limit, if Professor Sweeney takes my point here.
Returning to Professor Sweeney on anaerobic digesters, there are two options on slurry. The Government or the Minister, Deputy Ryan, never gave a feed-in tariff which one needs to make them viable. This was given in the North. On the two options, one can take the methane and turn it into gas if one wants to. I presume Professor Sweeney would agree that it would be better to do that rather than bringing grass from halfway across the world, as we will always need a bit of gas. The other part, which is where the problem is arising in anaerobic digestion, is that one has the digestate which is in liquid form or one can dry it. That takes energy and is where one needs the feed-in tariff. We are hearing about anaerobic digesters every day but they will not be there unless they are viable. As one of Professor Sweeney’s solutions, does he think it would help on the slurry side of it? I am not talking about the land or about growing more acres of grass to put into it, if the professor understands me correctly here.
Professor John Sweeney:
The key really with anaerobic digestion is the mix one has between silage and slurry. That is fairly crucial for a successful outcome. Let us be honest about the land because if one is talking about using up 5% of the agricultural area of Ireland for growing grass for anaerobic digestion, one will not have cattle on that land or be using fertiliser on that land.
In a sense, it creates another problem down the road for agriculture. We are very conscious of the fact that the derogation imposes penalties and income losses on farmers. The extent of that income loss is something that perhaps needs to teased out a bit more. I know the committee heard from the farm organisations last week that it could be up to €230 million. That is as a result of assumptions in a multiplier effect. Whether it emerges as that or not, I have been looking at the Irish Farm Accounts Co-operative Society Limited, which has done a very good job on looking at the case study of a farm with 40 ha with 112 cows. It came to the conclusion that farmers, as the Deputy said, have two choices at the end of the day. They either acquire more land or else reduce their herd numbers. The kind of reductions in income which the Irish Farm Accounts Co-operative Society Limited came up with for those two alternative models of farms was a 5% drop in income for the first case of acquiring more land, or a 23% drop if one was to go down the road of reducing cattle numbers.
We recognise that that is quite a severe situation for farmers. There is no doubt about it. It very much goes back to what was said earlier about preparation being important. The reality is that the train has left the station for the directive. It was 1991 when we had the first derogation and the purpose of it was to prepare to comply with the directive. After 30 years, we have not prepared for the day that came at the end of last year. It was ruthless but that is the nature of regulation. It can be ruthless if one is not prepared for it. It is imperative that we prepare for the potential loss of the derogation. We only have four countries in Europe left in derogation status - Denmark, Ireland, Flanders and the Netherlands. Some of those have been told they will be out of derogation at the end of next year. It is important that we look at the possibility of that worst case scenario and recognise the Commission will probably not be generous to us on a further derogation down the road.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Turning to BirdWatch Ireland, the last sighting of the bunting bird was in the mid-1990s in Mayo. Is that right? The derogation came in in 1991. Obviously, the derogation was not responsible for this bunting bird position, was it?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. Ms Duggan spoke about various species such as the hen harrier. Many measures have been put in for the hen harrier. What has happened and what has gone wrong as I notice Ms Duggan said that the young birds seem to be disappearing? What is the cause of that?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Do BirdWatch Ireland believe that a catch crop is important?
Ms Oonagh Duggan:
There is science and studies are being undertaken by Teagasc. It is just about to start to look at the issues on shallow cultivation, to perhaps see how we continue to have farmland birds in these areas with arable land and with shallow cultivation and to see what the options are. The studies have just started.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The last point I will make is that whatever solutions we come up with, the political will will not be there. I say to Professor Sweeney to tell farmers to cut down on stock numbers right across the board. People are working together on solutions that would help.
There is a river near my home and it is one of the most pristine rivers in Ireland. One cannot get a derogation around it because it is coloured red, even though it is the most pristine in Ireland. That defies logic.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Overall, 50% of our rivers are good or to a high standard. That must be admitted.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is what we are being told. I think we have to look at the glass being half full. I thank the Vice Chair.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Deputy is more than welcome. I call Senator Daly.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I welcome the witnesses. I want to tease out a few things in our guests' submissions a little bit further and to do a compare and contrast exercise with both BirdWatch Ireland and An Taisce, in particular, with regard to the birds and the shallow tillage. We will start with that one. I get what BirdWatch is saying. I am a farmer and when I was younger we were making some tillage and I know the advantages of the stubble ground afterwards, the spilled grain, and whatever. What evidence has An Taisce got where it mentioned that there are areas which are predominantly tillage where there are nitrates problems as much, or even more so, than with dairy activity? Does An Taisce see an advantage to the shallow cultivation to mitigate that problem? We are all interested in not just water quality here but biodiversity as a whole. If An Taisce sees the merits in the shallow cultivation, how does it square the circle which has arisen from a biodiversity and a bird point of view? How does one mitigate the nitrogen leakage without the shallow cultivation? What is plan B if we are to leave the seed and the stubble for the birds?
Dr. Elaine McGoff:
That is a good question. It is interesting because Ms Duggan and I have just worked together on a campaign on hen harriers. I very much have a foot in both camps. An Taisce always says we care very much about wild birds and we also care about water quality. It is an interesting conundrum. My knowledge on tillage and water quality is not as good as it is on pasture farming. My understanding is there are benefits to putting cover crops in, depending on the timing and depending on how quickly one gets them in the ground. There are an awful lot of complications regarding whether the land is suitable to go out and plant. I note this year was particularly bad.
Regarding how to square the circle, I think you just bring it back to science. Look at the areas of the catchment where the EPA has identified high potential areas for losing nitrate. If the tillage area is in one of those areas, then is it also incredibly important for birds? You need to have all the information in front of you, weigh up the pros and cons, look at what the law states – the habitats directive and the birds directive are very clear about having to protect these species – and go from there. As Ms Duggan outlined, it seems as if they put this measure in place, which is positive for water quality, but without even considering the impact on the birds, which is not good. If we are making this decision, we need to do it with our eyes wide open, with an eye to the science and an eye to the law. I do not have a solution other than we need more information.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does Mr. Moore wish to comment on that?
Mr. Paul Moore:
Yes. From my experience, probably half the time there is not green cover on the shallow cultivated areas. You do not go in and set a crop when the conditions are not right. For example, I do not decide I will have all my barley sown by the middle of March just because it is the middle of March. Rather I wait until the conditions are right. Having this thing of having to cultivate two weeks after harvest just does not work. There was no green cover in half the fields I came across. These are shallow cultivated fields. They had not established the green cover. I can show the Senator the pictures on my phone afterwards if he would like. It just does not seem to be working. I suppose there is a feeling among tillage farmers that perhaps the Department wants to be seen to be taking action without actually knowing if it is going to work. Green cover does work to soak up nitrates, but if you are not establishing a green cover, it will not work and it is probably making things worse. That is why I said cover crops might be a suitable alternative, even though, again, it is an added expense for the farmer. There will be deeper roots with cover crops than just a shallow cultivation measure where you are cultivating the seeds that are already on or in the soil. Cover crops will go down deeper and have different root structures.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Many birds will not get any benefit from a cover crop.
Ms Oonagh Duggan:
Following on from both those sets of comments, we need to go back and look at the science. The key thing is that this is a blunt instrument that was brought in in a very rushed manner with no published environmental assessment of it. No farmer would accept a change coming in if they did not have any sight of what the impact would be on their livelihoods. Why would we accept that for the legal protections we have for birds in Ireland and bring in a measure without knowing with the effects would be? It does not make sense.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We can park that one there. We could say it was well intended but there are consequences that were not foreseen or studied.
I am constituency colleague of Deputy Flaherty, so it is not that I am ignoring Coastwatch but we do not have any coast in Westmeath either. Returning to An Taisce, could Dr. McGoff explain a little more on the science and study in respect of the comment that the biggest problem with nitrate leakage is the urine patches as opposed to slurry, even that which is spread with low emissions slurry spreading? I would take from that as a farmer that the way to go is what we see many people doing now, namely, zero grazing. We put the cattle in and we spread the slurry as opposed to having them urinating and whatever on the land. That is probably the most intensive type of farming we have. I am not a scientist or biologist but what is the difference in urine patches and slurry when basically the majority of slurry is urine?
Dr. Elaine McGoff:
We took that directly from Teagasc research. It is published research. I have the reference in the submission. It is not our own estimate. Regarding urine patches and slurry, I am not exactly clear on the mechanism but I think basically the nitrate load in urine goes through the soil quickly because it is very liquid whereas slurry is more mixed, has more organic matter and sticks to the land more.
On moving to zero grazing, if you were only interested in nitrate and did not care about anything else, that might be a solution. However, none of us want to go there. That would be bad for-----
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is what I am saying. I will not say it sounds like An Taisce is nearly promoting it but when I read that, the first thing that came into my head was that the way to go is zero grazing. However, that is not what we want to promote.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Reading An Taisce’s submission - I am not being critical - I was trying to work out in my head the difference between urine patching and slurry and the first thing that came into my head was that the direction to go here is zero grazing.
Dr. Elaine McGoff:
I think we all agree that none of us think that is a good idea. We need to look at other alternatives, for example, more extensive farming or looking to New Zealand and how they have managed this there. They are a couple of years ahead of us with regard to a dairy boom and a serious water quality decline. We should look to other countries for solutions. In New Zealand, they have nitrogen budgets and each farmer can spend a certain amount of nitrogen on their land. That comes back to making policy decisions. There are just a handful of very intensive farmers and there are smaller, less intensive farmers. That is a political decision.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is there alternative science to the science Dr. McGoff is quoting? In any argument, there are two sides. You can read an article today and think it is convincing and tomorrow you could read an article on the other side of the argument and it can be equally as convincing. I am not a scientist but for the purpose of conversation, my layman’s theory on it would be that the cow urinating on the grass is small volume frequently. I would imagine it would soak unless it is very free draining as opposed to slurry coming out in bulk. I would use the same argument for Dr. McGoff’s answer to Deputy Fitzmaurice with regard to the mixed species and the clover. You are spreading artificial fertiliser and putting a volume of nitrogen on the ground. If it comes a wet night, that is bound to be a bigger problem than the photosynthesis or whatever and the clover taking in the nitrogen in small consistent volumes to the root of the plant where there are other roots and it is being taken up. I could not believe that multispecies and clover would be considered a problem when it came to leakage.
Dr. Elaine McGoff:
It fixes nitrogen but it is also quite high in protein, so when the cattle eat it, the level of nitrogen in their urine also increases. It is not just that it fixes it and loses it. It fixes it, the cattle eat it and then it is lost through them.
I have not seen alternative science but this is Teagasc science. Will the committee have Teagasc in front of it to discuss this topic? It would be good to ask Teagasc representatives to explain that. This question is best directed to them because they really understand what went into this modelling. I could give the Senator an answer but their answer would be better. They would understand it more than I do.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does Dr. McGoff have access to any studies – I know it will probably be Teagasc again, and I presume we will have Teagasc in – on the amount of nitrates in our water that are coming through drainage from land or that are coming from animals still being allowed into water courses to drink and doing their business while they are in there?
Dr. Elaine McGoff:
That would be more of a phosphate problem. Nitrogen comes straight down through the soil whereas when animals access water, it often leads to sediment and phosphorous problems. Therefore, they would be separate enough. The EPA has data on where the phosphate problem is and where the nitrate problem is.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If the Chair does not mind, I have one more question. In this whole debate, the study we are doing is to put a report together with regard to the derogation going forward. At what point of the discussion does food security come into play? We have the farmer side and we have the witnesses’ side. Leaving the fact that both sides have a serious and vested interest, Joe Public is outside and needs to be fed going forward – a growing population. Where will we get that happy medium where we can increase the quality of the water, increase or maintain our biodiversity but, at the same time, meet the food production demands of a growing world population?
Dr. Elaine McGoff:
The Ukraine war highlighted how insecure we are. I know fertiliser and grain were very difficult to come by. I read many articles. Members of the farming community were panicking to a certain extent about how they were going to manage to feed their livestock and have enough fertiliser to grow enough grass. In terms of food security, the ratings I often hear are based on international trade routes that are functioning. When they stop functioning, we are in trouble because we have a high input system that needs a lot of fertiliser and grain to produce all the meat and milk we do. An Taisce would always advocate for better food sovereignty, more tillage and more vegetables. Obviously, there are market problems there and farmers growing vegetables are going out of business left, right and centre. We need a broader conversation about this. We need to support farmers to grow the food that humans in Ireland eat.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We need to bring that element into the conversation. We seem to be having conversations that are polar.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The purpose of this whole exercise from a farming perspective is food production and it never gets a mention in the conversation.
Mr. Paul Moore:
May I comment on food security from the point of view of a tillage farmer? The area of tillage in Ireland has declined by 40% since the 1980s. We now import close to 1 million tonnes of fruit and vegetables every year, much of which we could grow here. It is not about bringing dairy down but is about bringing other types of farming up to make them viable. One of the incidental or unintended consequences of the nitrates derogation reduction was that land was taken out of tillage and put into grass because dairy farmers needed more land. That has done nothing for food security and we in this country are not food secure because we export vast amounts of dairy produce and beef but import an awful lot of tillage. Food security is not discussed often enough in this country.
Ms Karin Dubsky:
I will add something briefly. I was going to make the same point but we must also consider water security. I have brought nitrate tests with me. They can be used by any farmer. The average nitrates content of our drinking water in County Wexford is 25 mg/l and it regularly breaches the nitrates directive. That is not secure. It is dangerous. We have to purify our water to drink it.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is Ms Dubsky talking about drinking water?
Ms Karin Dubsky:
I am talking about our drinking water that comes from the taps. We used to have perfect water from a group scheme but we do not any longer. We are now on the public supply, as are hundreds and thousands of others around Gorey. We must look at that. Data from Coastwatch show that half of the samples we take every autumn from our surface waters, which are going into the sea, are bad. Committee members have a printout of those data. The trends are getting worse and worse so we must act.
Professor John Sweeney:
I will follow up on that point about high levels of nitrates in drinking water. The committee might be interested to know that a fairly radical piece of research was published recently. It was a study undertaken by the University of Copenhagen in conjunction with the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland. The study was published in a reputable journal and peer reviewed. It looked at a cohort of people in Denmark and 2018 and came up with a very strong link between the levels of nitrates in drinking water and instances of colorectal cancer. We have traditionally based our 50 mg limit on the blue baby syndrome and the problems of haemoglobin and so on but there are now emerging signs that even at levels well below that, there is a major increase in colorectal cancer. This particular study reports a 15% increase where people are exposed to levels above 9 mg/l when compared with people who have not been exposed to those kinds of levels in drinking water. That is coming down the line for the Commission and is another argument that will be used against the renewal of the directive for any country down the road. The study estimates the cost of increases in colorectal cancer at €300 million per year in lost working time, medical costs and so on. In addition to the ecological problems and concerns around biodiversity and so on, we are becoming increasingly aware of medical issues related to levels of nitrates in water well below the 50 mg/l limit and, in fact, well below the 10 mg/l.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does or could purification for drinking water remove the nitrates?
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
When the water gets to the point of being drinking water, it has gone through the purification system.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If we were talking about streams here, okay, but is drinking water not treated? Does the treatment process not address the nitrate content?
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am talking about public drinking water.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We are talking about public drinking water. Is it not part of the process for the purification of drinking water that nitrates are taken out or neutralised?
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I know from my own private well that they are. It was one of the things we insisted on when the kids were born and we got it done.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I would imagine that is the case.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The majority of us have treatment plants, a big drum, that we use. I cannot go into the technical issues.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is not desirable from the point of view of any of us that nitrates would be going into the water but I would be very surprised if they were then in the water that people drink when it comes out of the purification system.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is an issue that we need to raise with the health side of the House more than this side.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am a Cork man. We will not go there.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
My question is about purification.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It should be happening.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will try to make progress if I can. I apologise to the witnesses but Deputies will be returning from the Chamber soon and there will be more questions.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In a few moments. I will start my questions, if that is okay with the Senator. I thank him. It is great to have a few Cork people here. It is great to have a few Corkonians in the audience. It makes me feel more at home straightaway.
BirdWatch Ireland made an interesting presentation regarding its members' view on cover crops. We can see the map published by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and where there are issues of water quality shown by its testing. There is a red map on page 27. I married a woman from Cloyne and I know east Cork well. It is big tillage country. There is not much dairy. Some has come in over recent years but it is still big tillage country. Many people from my part of the world go down there and rent via conacre. In east Cork, tillage is a real driver, especially in places such as Cloyne. We have heard the idea that there could be bad water quality or an effect on wildlife. Where is the balance here? Is it balance that we go into pasture? Is it balance that we have stubble and potentially poor water quality? Where is the balance in our witnesses' argument in that respect? I know that part of the world, including Ballymaloe and all these other places, like the back of my hand. It is tillage country but it is also red. On the EPA map, it is as red as red can be. Where do we get the balance?
Ms Oonagh Duggan:
As I said in our statement, we are very concerned about the decline in water quality and the status of the water bodies. There are many birds, as well as people, that rely on that water. It is critical. The blunt nature of the measure that was put in without any assessment or mitigation of the impacts in a wider context needs to be looked at. There could be-----
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Which is better-----
Ms Oonagh Duggan:
It is not a case of either-or. It is a case of working out how we have both and asking how we work on both. What measures can we put in place to, for example, support more farmland birds outside of those areas? Perhaps there are more wild bird cover crops that can be put in other areas.
Maybe there are special types of cover crops that can both resolve the issue of nitrates and work for birds. Maybe we need to make more efforts to ensure we know what is happening with hen harriers as juveniles and what measures we need in that regard. It is looking at the broad picture. I really-----
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am not being argumentative, but does Ms Duggan see the conflict?
Ms Oonagh Duggan:
Yes, totally. One thing I find very frustrating at the moment is that it has to be either biodiversity or water quality, or biodiversity or forestry, or biodiversity or climate, or climate or water. We have to get away from that and start looking at all the issues together or else we are going to have very unsatisfactory outcomes. We just do not have enough cross-fertilisation of ideas and studies. A lot of people are working in silos and not talking to one another within Departments and we have to get past that and work together on issues. I do not believe it is either-or. I would hate to see a red area continue to be red. We would not like that to be the case for anybody. We have to work on these issues together. It cannot be either-or.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
They are still getting down there.
Mr. Paul Moore:
They are hanging on in old land, I suppose. As Ms Duggan said, everything is a trade-off. I am by no means unique but I am in the unusual position of having had a foot in both camps for a long time. I have always said that at any meeting I went to there would be somebody I wanted to give a slap around the ear to, whether it was a BirdWatch Ireland meeting or a farmers' meeting. When we look at the value of biodiversity in general, it comes bottom of the list compared with climate change, air quality and water quality. It tends to come last and there is a feeling that that is what happened with this measure. It is a trade-off, absolutely.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Sticking to Cork, Ms Connolly's part of world, there are very few dairy farmers. In fact, there are probably just three dairy farmers on the Beara Peninsula.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I think I could name the three of them-----
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If I could take the Beara Peninsula as an example, the unit area is the size of Louth. It is a huge area geographically, but the population of dairy farmers, in particular, and even of bovine farmers in general is very limited. These are low-stocked areas with farmers running fewer than 40 units. This part of the world cannot afford to have any reduction in stocking and so on to be viable at any level. One of the farmers in Ardgroom is in derogation. Is Ms Connolly fearful that if we lost these farmers to derogation, we would lose the connectivity on the peninsula that is so important?
Ms Bernie Connolly:
I think what is coming up a lot here relates, first, to coherence regarding policies. In the second instance, however, as we hear a lot, we need to incentivise farmers in other ways to earn an income in order that they can continue to work the land but also have benefits concerning water quality, biodiversity and climate. It is almost a perfect storm. Many challenges are coming their way and things cannot go on in the way they have been. The Beara Peninsula is probably suffering more from overgrazing with sheep than from issues with water quality. In other parts of Cork, such as Clonakilty Bay, the Teagasc advisory catchments have been looking at that soil in respect of nitrates. That needs to be looked at in the work Teagasc has been carrying out on that catchment, given it is one of the most intensive catchments in the country.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Ms Connolly referred to the Timoleague catchment, just outside Cloyne, by Ring and Barryroe. That catchment has seen a dramatic increase in stocking rates in the past 14 years, but on the back of that, it has not seen a dramatic increase in nitrates in the water. The year 2018 was a dip but-----
Ms Bernie Connolly:
I do not know. That is not the case from my Coastwatch testing. We would really have to look at the eutrophication in the bay area in those areas.
One issue that has not arisen is that sometimes it is more on a case-by-case basis. We have to deal not only with soil types, as was mentioned, but with the whole topography. The topography in that area is difficult but an awful lot is coming into the estuaries there that-----
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I might turn to the representatives from An Taisce-----
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is okay. I thank Ms Connolly.
We will move on to An Taisce because the clock is ticking. In the representatives' opening statement, they stated that in the case of the Barrow and Slaney catchments, only 28% and 27%, respectively, of the nitrate was attributable to arable land. I take it the rest of that is pasture-based farming.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Are we to take it the rest are pasture based?
Dr. Elaine McGoff:
I am just looking at the sources of nitrogen as opposed to the land use in the catchment. In the case of the sources of nitrogen in the Slaney and the Barrow, 60% of the nitrate is coming from pasture, just short of 30% is from arable and there are small quantities from urban wastewater and other.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Of the 60% from pasture, what percentage of that farming comprises derogation farming?
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is that not a gap? As Dr. McGoff said in her statement, derogation farmers have to go through many hoops. I think there have been 30-something different hoops over the past three years regarding farming, how they operate, water storage and huge issues regarding how to spread slurry, and then other farmers might not be in derogation. We cannot classify one against the other regarding water quality.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
They might be using different farming practices.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Do we not have a nitrogen budget per farm at the moment regarding how much slurry can be spread per hectacre?
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Regarding the Timoleague catchment, which is very close to my home, there have been dramatic changes in the stocking density over recent years. The year 2018 was a blip becuase of climate issues and advice. It is amazing what they learned very quickly. It has proven something different, however, regarding good farming practices and the quality of testing. Is there an issue with how the EPA tester boils water? If one regime in the catchments is testing every ten minutes and another regime is testing every four weeks, is that a failure within the EPA regarding its testing regimes?
Dr. Elaine McGoff:
No. In the case of Timoleague, there was a lot of talk about how we were seeing positive trends in Timoleague from 2018 or 2019 up to 2022, but that trend has fallen apart and the nitrate levels have gone right back up again. Even at their best, when the lowest ever level for nitrogen was recorded, in 2022, at 4.95 mg, that is still twice the ecological level that is allowed. It was three times the phosphorous level and the biodiversity was bad that whole time, so it is not actually a good news story.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Timoleague is a good news story.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I think that would be a very fair reflection regarding the farming practices, which are quite unique and powerful. When we look at Timoleague, what was achieved as a model farm for farmers was very helpful, so I would hate to hear its good name being diminished in any way. Regarding the results, however, the stocking rates have increased quite dramatically. A place such as Leitrim is totally red, according to the EPA results, with one derogation farmer. If we got rid of every bovine farmer in Leitrim tomorrow morning, would it still be red?
Dr. Elaine McGoff:
In fact, the EPA itself would say its red map is not based on its best science but is what was required of it by the Commission. The EPA has developed another map, its agricultural measures map, into which it has put all its best science and its far more extensive monitoring network, so-----
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The science is based off the directive. The EPA put the red map together based on the directive.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What we are discussing today is whether the directive is fit for purpose. Dr. McGoff obviously believes changes to the directive the EPA is enforcing are required if what we are coming up with is a red map that the EPA must then clarify by way of a counter-map.
Dr. Elaine McGoff:
I had discussions with Commission officials about this and they were very clear that, while the red map had to be supplied by the EPA in accordance with Article 10 of the nitrates directive, that does not mean the EPA and the Irish Government cannot also consider other information. The EPA put together a much more thorough map because it would acknowledge that the soil in Leitrim is generally heavy soil and is not going to be-----
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is that not the issue? There are more issues at play than just the stocking rate. There are issues like soil type, which is a very significant issue with regard to nitrates.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am not saying it is more important. I am saying that it is a major issue in this debate.
Dr. Elaine McGoff:
It is a major issue but we know that nitrates are a major issue on freely draining soil in the south and south east. That is really what we should be looking at and talking about here. There is no point talking about nitrate problems in the west of Ireland because it is not really that big a problem.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We should not be talking about the EPA map on page 27.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I mean page 27 of the EPA report.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The famous Cork map, as I call it.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The clerk is pulling me up, and rightly so. My last point is about how we can empower farmers to get the information. I made the point last week and will probably make it again next week that, when I get my milk collected on a dairy round on a Tuesday, I will have a test on Thursday. I will know the water quality and the quality of my product exactly. Information from the EPA's testing regime does not come quickly. The EPA will publish a report next June for the year before. Do we need to empower farmers with that information? I have used the catchment data for the farm. It is awkward but you can do it if you have to. It is not very user-friendly. That is the terminology I would use. It is harder to get information from the EPA within, say, 48 hours. Is that a flaw?
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If we are trying to empower farmers to do what they can, is not having that information not an issue?
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Farming groups hold discussion groups every month. The matter could be discussed at those groups. People could say, for example, that water quality has gone bananas in the last four weeks and ask what people are doing. That is the obvious conversation to have.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There is logic in it. These discussion groups happen in every farming setting, even in east Cork. There is logic to using the model that is there to empower farmers.
Dr. Elaine McGoff:
In that case, the Leas-Chathaoirleach is almost talking about something different. The EPA does a massive volume of work with its monitoring. It has a great monitoring network and it does its thing. However, is this more suitable for citizen science and the kind of water quality testing Ms Dubsky is talking about? That could really get local communities invested in their water quality and going out with their little testing tools. It is a simple test but it would give a good indication of what is happening. It could kill two birds with one stone.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I beg to disagree, my dear.
Ms Karin Dubsky:
I totally agree with the questioning. We have to empower farmers. I come from farming stock and know how my father reasoned what to do next. I am holding a picture of a farmer in Bannow Bay. We do the Coastwatch survey in Clonakilty Bay and Bannow Bay. For the first time, Bannow Bay has improved. It is not just about testing nitrate levels in the small streams, although I was just doing that and have some tests for everyone. It is also about seeing what happens below. In Clonakilty Bay, the amount of sea grass, which is the most important thing as regards biodiversity and carbon, has decreased to virtually nothing because the opportunistic green algae, which are like nettles on land, have taken over. In Bannow Bay, we had exactly the same problem but last summer and autumn, for the first time, real improvement could be seen. What is fascinating about it is that it is my home ground. I speak to other farmers and we identify small streams where nitrate levels are really high. When the Coastwatch results came out, we asked what happened to cause our sea grass to suddenly boom. There is now a sea grass bed in front of the land owned by the farmer whose picture I have shown for the first time in about 30 years. This has brought about pure happiness.
We do not know exactly what happened but we are going to have a meeting on 22 March. The Macra na Feirme women are coming in as well. They want to know what we did right over the last two or three years to get this improvement in nature. Many of the farmers in the area have done basic kick sampling and have a basic knowledge of good and bad signs. Some of them are videoing the life in their streams. That is not part of an EIP or anything. It is just empowering the farmer, working together, noting these really good signs of improvement and asking what exactly we did right. A few have told us that fertiliser prices went up so they spread less. That is one thing. I do not know how much of an impact that had but it is at least a little bit of information. It is very important to empower farmers and to give some good news. Farmers are not only the problem but also part of the solution.
Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Cuirim fáilte roimh gach duine. They are very welcome. Engagement and debate are very important. It is good to hear Ms Dubsky talk about the engagement she is having with people in Macra na Feirme about developments in respect of the environment that are obviously very exciting for her. If I may say so, there is a gulf. I was reared on a small farm in County Roscommon. There is a gulf between farmers and those people who are trying to give us a very important message. I have heard Professor Sweeney on "The Joe Finnegan Show" on Shannonside Northern Sound. I produced that show for years. In fairness, he always tries to bring the farmers on board and always acknowledges that they face great challenges. While I do not mean this as a criticism but instead point it out as something we should learn from, in some of this debate, some of us have tended to talk down to farmers. As a politician, in dealing with agricultural issues down through the years, I have found it far more productive to meet a few farmers in the area than to hold big public meetings. I urge Professor Sweeney to take every opportunity to talk to community groups and farming groups on the ground.
I would not say there is one farmer who does not want good water quality. It is highly important for everybody's health. I have a question to ask in that regard. Obviously, there are parts of the country where the water quality is bad and parts where it is very good. Can any of the witnesses tell me where the problems are bigger and where they are smaller?
Dr. Elaine McGoff:
I can give an answer to Senator Murphy. It depends - that is a great answer - on what one is looking at. If one is looking at nitrate, it is in the south and the south east. If one is looking at phosphate, it is much more spread and is on heavy soil. Sediment is a really big problem. We are also seeing problems because of forestry with our water quality and we seeing problems with what is called hydromorphology where one is dredging and straightening rivers. If you look at the EPA maps, a lot of those problems are spread all over the place. As nitrate is quite isolated in the south and south east, the pristine water bodies tend to be up in the uplands where there is not much agriculture. Forestry is the main pressure on the pristine water bodies, so if you have non-afforested uplands, that is usually where the best of the best is left.
Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The other question I want to ask the panel and which is open to anybody is whether the witnesses will continue to fight the derogation staying at 220 kg N/ha? It is correct to say that we are one of the very few countries now at 220 kg N/ha, most are at 170 kg N/ha. Will the witnesses continue that campaign? If they are going to continue that campaign, will they make a greater effort to engage with farmers on the ground on that matter?
Professor John Sweeney:
On the Senator's point about engaging with farmers, it is important to note that we do. An Taisce is on the point of producing a booklet, for which we have engaged with ten farmers and asked them about their experiences of moving to an organic agricultural system. We have received very positive replies from all of them. They are doing very well and are making good money out of a switch to organic and they have been encouraged by Government policy to do that.
I take the Senator's point that it is very important to engage at grassroots level with farmers and we will continue to do so but our prime mission is to protect the Irish environment and that will be what will underpin any policies that we adopt going forward. We recognise that the derogation has been a comparative advantage to Irish farmers over the years, of which other countries in Europe are probably jealous. We recognise also that it will be very hard to maintain that in the years to come. We are conscious of the need to protect the family farm in Ireland, albeit not necessarily the 1,000-cow farm in dairy farming. The family farm will, however, be integral all the way into the future in Ireland. We are conscious of that and we hope that by communicating with family farmers, they will trust that what we are trying to do is beneficial for Irish society as a whole.
Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
On that point, from my own experience of growing up on a family farm, which was then pretty small, my parents put in a huge effort to buy an extra bit of land to make it viable, as did many families. To go back to those days, I can recall the family farm was really efficient and environmentally aware. You would watch how the whitethorns and the blackthorns would develop and you would hear stories from your parents about how such an event would mean that such a kind of weather would occur. As for birdlife, you never interfered with a bird's nest and you protected wildlife. There was so much there from an environmental perspective from a farming background. I admit that has probably disappeared. I was involved with cutting a little bit of turf this year and after about 20 years of being missing, the curlew was back in that area of Roscommon. Everybody that I spoke to in the farming community was delighted to hear that sound back.
In many respects we can agree on a lot but while this is not a reflection on any of the witnesses, we need to have a different and better type of engagement. As I said earlier, engagement is about getting into local communities and I know that will mean more work for people like our witnesses. As I came from a horticultural background before I went into radio, I have a question for the witnesses. What is their opinion on importing briquettes from Latvia? What damage is that doing? We closed down the bogs.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Senator is moving off the topic.
Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am not because Mr. Moore made an important point in terms of fruit. From a farming stability point of view, we import €20 million worth of blueberries into this country. They can be so easily grown in Ireland. I made the point to the Minister, Deputy Ryan, that one of the problems is that it does not pay farmers to do that. You need to incentivise them. It is the same with cranberries, which can be grown very successfully in Ireland. We are importing all these, however, and nothing drives me more mad than when I go into the supermarket and see all of the South American labels. In terms of giving some sustainability to particular farms, we could produce those crops or give farmers incentives to produce those crops.
Mr. Paul Moore:
In terms of biodiversity, the Senator is absolutely correct. Biodiversity in the farmed landscape will help. That is the way it used to be. There used to be a vegetable factory, Erin Foods, within a mile of where I am farming and we used to grow five or six types of vegetables. It closed in the late 1980s as it could not compete with cheaper imports from abroad. I am a farmer and I know how much I am getting paid, what my father used to get paid and how the price per tonne has not kept up with inflation or anything else. The ideal is diversity in the landscape and lots of small farms or relatively small farms but that is not they way things are going unfortunately, because people want cheap food.
Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If it is okay with the Chair, I have one final short question. We cannot overlook the fact that we exported €19.5 billion worth of agrifood last year and that more than 150,000 people are employed in the businesses. In all of this debate, we have to find a way in which we do not substantially lose those jobs or those farms. Do the witnesses have an opinion on that?
Ms Karin Dubsky:
We are going down a cul-de-sac of being this far and having to continue. At the Young Scientist exhibition this year, a young lad from a family with a dairy herd did a survey on happiness and contentment of farmers, as well as depression of farmers. It made very stark reading. Looking at the Bannow Bay example from last autumn, the feeling of happiness when you are doing something for an area and the feeling of pride if things are okay are really important. You do not get money for it but that also has to be taken into account. We need to value that in some way. Something else which we did not do earlier was on carbon farming. The Senator said he was cutting peat. At the moment farmers do not get anything for their salt marsh or their peat bogs in terms of carbon sequestration but that must come in, in order that it is possible for farmers to get some of their income through that.
Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Most of the queries have probably been asked and answered at this stage and if they have, the witnesses could give a bit of information and I can look back.
The opening statements provided to us were detailed and really helpful but across all of them it seems as though we are in a space where the actions farmers are taking, sometimes at a cost to themselves, are apparently almost pointless, which is concerning. The other part of it is that what is there is actually doing damage to farmland birds. In both cases we are dealing with something that exists to keep the derogation for farmers who want to retain that derogation, which is something that all of us - particularly on this committee - feel strongly about. We cannot be in a space where farmers are taking actions, many of them at a cost to themselves, that literally are useless. If we want to retain the derogation, then as has been proposed, the catchment areas need to be on a case-by-case basis because no two areas and no two farms are the same. A lot of what the witnesses have said makes perfect sense and it is something that we will seek to progress. I have a couple of questions for Birdwatch Ireland on what has been done and the severe impact it will have over the next six or seven years on farmland.
It seems very stark. Where did this come from in the first place as the measure to take? There was no realisation, or maybe there was, of the consequences that would be there. It just seems like a crazy proposal to put in place, given its consequences and outworkings and the impact it will have, when we are trying to protect the species and the birds we have.
Ms Oonagh Duggan:
I believe it was interactions between the Departments of agriculture and housing. I am not quite sure where the decision was made at the end of the day. We did try to influence it through a submission, a position paper, on the topic that was sent to the Departments of housing and agriculture, but we are not clear how the decision was made or who made it. All I know is that it is the signature of the Minister for housing that is on the statutory instrument that gives effect to the change, so that Department is the main Department, perhaps, to discuss that with.
Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes, and I will follow up on that.
Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes, please.
Mr. Paul Moore:
Initially, the proposal was that you had to cultivate 100% of stubble. It was only through BirdWatch pointing out the importance of stubble that the proportion you have to cultivate was reduced to 75% to 80%. I think the Department reached that decision based on research from England. As I said, no studies have been done in Ireland. I made the point - the Deputy was not in the room at the time - that, generally, in terms of environmental issues, biodiversity comes at the bottom. I am not dissing the other issues, like climate change, water quality, air quality and so on, but biodiversity, in my opinion, generally comes low down. That probably informs some of that as to how that decision was reached.
Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is there a timeline for the research that Teagasc has undertaken to be completed, given some of the work that has been done? The witnesses referred to their own work on this. Is there a timeline in that regard or is it just with Teagasc and we must wait and see?
Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes. We cannot wait for that. Coastwatch referred to a good proposal that was raised by, I think, Macra na Feirme, whose representatives were before us last week to discuss these issues. I refer to farmers' ability to assess for themselves water quality and, again, the importance of a case-by-case approach, every farmer being different and all that. The simple field nitrate tests were mentioned, as was the importance of real-time data for farmers. Once they know what the levels are, they can take steps to try to resolve this, reduce it and make it better. Will the witnesses give us a bit more information on how that test would be undertaken for, say, an ordinary farmer and what they would need to do? What is the cost? How would the witnesses see this being rolled out and made available to farmers? They would do it themselves, I presume.
Ms Karin Dubsky:
They would not do it themselves. I did a quick demo. I have a tube with 100 tests, which is about €70, or you have individually wrapped tests that you can buy in batches of 1,000 and divide between farmers in a catchment. You just open it, dip it into water - I refer to the drinking water in the Gorey area - and then wait for one minute and hold it against the colour chart, which shows you both nitrite, whereby you would be really in trouble if you saw it, and nitrate. Nitrite is very recent, like slurry that has just come in, and nitrate is what we normally find. These are just ranges, so it is not an exact reading, which you would get if you were in the lab. These are Merck tests, which we have used for decades, and what is nice about them is that they also have the limit values. A value of 50 mg per litre is one of the colours, which relates to both the nitrates directive and the drinking water directive, so you know whether you are within or outside the law on that. We use those in coastal inflows and have used them in several of the bays where we have seen very problematic changes in biota, loss of seagrass, loss of other species, and shellfish farmers say there is too much eutrophication. When you give the tool to the farmers, you get it to become a talking point. People just start talking about it and then say, "You cannot just put slurry down a ditch", which also sometimes happens. It has an information, education, awareness and action result. What is also really important is that you look at the ecology in your ditches, streams and so on. Where a farmer sees, for example, sea trout rising or flounders and so on, that feeling of "I have fish here" is absolutely brilliant. You need ecological information first. You also need information on the likes of sewage fungus. It is very simple to identify once you have seen it once. Currently, however, it is not in the farm training and not even in the in-service training which farmers get. It is not included; it should be.
Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
An Taisce also makes the point in its opening statement that we must remember that farmers are not the only ones capable of causing nitrate pollution. This is an argument many people will make in that farmers can take all the actions in the world but it is not just farmers. Would the three groups be able to briefly give their view and opinion on responsibility, that is, where farmers lie as to how much responsibility they need to take as regards the issue of pollution in the first place?
Dr. Elaine McGoff:
Again, I am going to sound like a broken record here. It is a matter of coming back to the science. Look at the EPA science as to where the biggest pressure is, and it is agriculture. Urban wastewater, for example, does not get a free pass, but five times more water bodies are impacted by agriculture than urban wastewater. That does not mean urban wastewater gets off scot-free. Everybody has to pull their weight but, logically, if you want to improve water quality, you have to look at what the biggest pressure is and prioritise that while working on all the other pressures at the same time.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Where does the other 15% come from?
Dr. Elaine McGoff:
And other urban runoff. May I pick up on one thing Deputy Kerrane said about how the measures farmers are putting in place are pointless? I would be at pains to say that is not the case. It is just that if you are interested only in nitrate, a lot of these would not be very effective, but things like woodlands that have great potential for biodiversity and low-emission slurry spreading are great for reducing ammonia. It is not that these measures are totally pointless. It is just that if you put on your blinkers for nitrate, they are not particularly effective.
Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
For those farmers who are in the derogation, their first priority is to hold that. If the specific measures they are taking are not enough to do what needs to be done, we will get to the point in a couple of years' time, when this is being examined again, that farmers will be told what they did actually did nothing. That needs to be turned around.
Dr. Elaine McGoff:
Yes. That is a problem. There should be honesty. The table I presented should be given to all advisers and to farmers. It is complicated enough, but when you understand it, it is a simple message. I do not think that message is getting out there. I hear many people talk about low-emission slurry spreading and protected urea as just a catch-all that is good for water quality, but it is not. There is a certain lack of expressing that message to farmers. That message is not getting across. That is my perception, at least.
Ms Oonagh Duggan:
We are not working as closely on water quality as An Taisce is. Indirectly, we are because of our waterbirds and, as we said, the winter stubble, so it is really important to us as well.
We talk to a lot of farmers and one thing we definitely see is that farmers really want to make sure they are not affecting water quality, but sometimes they are scrambling to look for the measure that will work for us here. We are hearing that it is not so straightforward. From a bird conservation perspective, we work closely at farm level to see what measures would be best for birds. Bespoke on-farm measures work well. If you scale it up or look at a catchment and work with farms in the catchment, that is where the solution ultimately is directed towards. Bespoke measures are very important, as is making sure at a catchment level that we are dealing with the problem, looking at the science and making sure everybody is well equipped with the right information, perhaps the funding for capital works if they need it, and supports in that way.
Ms Karin Dubsky:
It is also how society works. Yes, farmers may be the largest pressure, but if you want to get to good status for a particular catchment, it may not be possible to reach it unless you address other things like a small sewage treatment plant that might not be working properly. In the EIP in which I was involved, officially the EPA said to put pressure on agriculture. That was it. We worked with the farmers but also other landowners. Some of the other landowners love fertiliser so we had to try to reduce that. This involved houses with large gardens.
Then we came to the sewage treatment plant where Irish Water would not give us the information. We tested above and below and saw that, lo and behold, there was a lot coming out of there. We need buy-in from others and not just farmers, because we did not reach the nitrates concentration we wanted to reach and we did not get the buy-in from Irish Water. It removed a tertiary treatment system on that treatment plant. After an FOI request, Irish Water did acknowledge there was an issue. We need a catchment approach where everybody works together. In the beginning, everybody said the farmer was the problem while, in the end, we said we all have to continue working together to solve this with everybody contributing.
Johnny Mythen (Wexford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for appearing before us. It is nice to meet Ms Dubsky again. From what the witnesses are telling us, stock reduction is the answer. That seems to be the theme. It is easily said but it is not easily done because many small farmers will be under fierce pressure. Farming organisations appeared before us last week and gave examples where, under the derogation, a farmer with 75 cattle wound up with 59. In reality, he cannot rear his family on that. That is the seriousness of it. We have to strike a balance. Of course, water quality is of the utmost importance and every farmer recognises that, because if he does not have good quality on his land, everything will go downhill. We recognise that but it is about how to balance that. The Slaney and the Barrow catchment is in my area. If the witnesses are telling me that even if 50% is reduced there, it is not enough, what does that mean for farmers? The witnesses did not take on the first two questions. I know that is difficult economically but we have to face that fact as well. We have to get the facts about how this is going to affect people because we are talking about people's incomes. It is what we do in this country and it is what we do very well. If the witnesses had a magic wand tomorrow morning and we told them you cannot reduce the stock, would there be an alternative way to reduce nitrogen?
Dr. Elaine McGoff:
It is not where we want to end up. Denmark, which has quite high stocking density, is improving water quality but it has moved to house systems. None of us in this room want to end up with cattle housed indoors. It is much more nitrogen efficient but it is bad for an awful lot of other reasons. It is not a very good magic wand solution but if you want to address nitrates and keep the same stocking density, that is where you end up.
Johnny Mythen (Wexford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I hear what Dr. McGoff is saying but we must balance humanity and nature and something has to give. If we are saying nitrogen is as bad as the witnesses are saying it is and if they are saying it must be reduced even more than it is already being reduced by in high catchment areas, what do we do? We see what is happening to farmers across all of Europe, and the nature restoration law is coming in, which states that 20% of European land has to be restored to nature by 2030. This is a very short timeframe so this is coming down the line as well. We are a farming community so we must balance things. Farmers feel they are under fierce pressure and cannot cope at the moment. The witnesses said the situation is too complicated. How do we make that easier because the two must work in tandem? I am more concerned about smaller farmers because it is like everything else. Like big businesses, big farmers will survive but the average or medium farmer in Ireland will not and that is what we are facing.
Has Coastwatch had much engagement with the Department or any of the farming bodies? What are the biggest obstacles when it comes to compliance and enforcement of the nitrates rule changes in 2024? The Slaney catchment area is in my county. It is very high and I do not know how people are going to cope with change. It is very worrying. The witnesses said false promises were given to farmers in the south and south east, which is my area. What were these false promises and who made them?
Dr. Elaine McGoff:
I can answer the question on false promises because that was in our statement. What I was referring to was the lack of honesty, that it was a case of just put in place all these measures in the nitrates action programme with regard to the derogation for farmers, and as long as they abide by all of the regulations, we will be grand and water quality will improve. However, the science says otherwise. As the Deputy clearly articulated, farmers are under pressure, are worried and do not know how they are going to feed their families, and they are being told that if they just do what it says on the tin, water quality will be okay. I have looked at water quality for 20 years. I do not believe that and I think it is incredibly unfair that farmers are being put in this position and there is a lack of honesty. This is a conversation that needs to happen and the two need to be balanced, but let us start by saying that if we prioritise water quality, this is what it would actually look like, because until we know what we are dealing with, there will be fear and we will go in circles.
Professor John Sweeney:
The damage was done when the Common Agricultural Policy was renegotiated. It was quite clear at that stage that the Commission was going to move away from a productionist philosophy towards an environmental protection philosophy. In many parts of Europe, farmers responded to that. Between 70% and 80% of farmers in Senator Murphy's area are gaining the bulk of their income from environmental schemes rather than from production. I know it is very different in the Slaney catchment. Farmers, for whom I have a great deal of sympathy, have been misled.
They were told to go into intensive production at a time when the Commission was quite clearly setting its stall against that. I believe we must look at why the Common Agricultural Policy was not better balanced out when it was renegotiated. Why were Irish farmers not encouraged to anticipate the removal of the derogation, which has now been going on for 30 years? Why has an intensification been allowed to proceed that is now threatening water and air quality, as well as our commitments under climate? Environmentalists are not the problem. I believe farmers have been put in an awkward position. They have been led into a policy cul-de-sac. I believe it needs a complete rethink of how the farming environment should be operated in the years ahead.
Ms Karin Dubsky:
Something important has been said; the farmer wishes to rear his family on it. That is the key thing. The farmer does not have to have all the prescriptions and headaches. In the face of climate change and the biodiversity crisis, farming can and should change in order that there will be farming for biodiversity and carbon sequestration. That is really important. Of course, there will still be crops as well but the other goods and services that farmers bring should be properly compensated. For example, in our European Innovation Partnership project, the farmer at the top of the stream had a small wet woodland. He explained that he did not kill it because his father was so attached to it and when he was dying, he told him not to straighten that one out. Otherwise, everything else was straightened out. When I came, I saw that wet woodland and it was like a dream; it had everything. There were fungi and different kinds of species. He used to be penalised for having it; single farm payments are not given for this. At least now under the reforms he will get some payment. However, he should get extra payment as it is a very valuable old wet woodland. That would help the small farmer who quite often still has some nooks and crannies of incredible value. That would be the way forward.
I was in Germany at the weekend and I saw some farmers explaining that they were now in an area that was reaching good quality and therefore, they will get more for their produce. We should try to explore that as well.
Ms Oonagh Duggan:
I thank the Deputy.
Broadly, I think the question around how we address water quality and ensure farmers have livelihoods is well put. It is a difficult question to answer. The dignity of farmers must be remembered in this. This is their way of life and if they choose to diversify, they should be given as many options as possible. No farmer goes out saying it is his or her intention to destroy the environment tomorrow. No farmer does that. I am from a dairy farming background and that did not happen. By the same token, from that dairy background my father told us to stay away from farming because there was nothing left in it any more and that there was no money to be made after a certain time. This reflects our earlier conversation around a cheap food policy that does not seem to benefit farmers at the end of the day. My brother went back to farming but he is now doing free range eggs. He feeds 26 stores in Limerick on 2 acres, instead of using an 80-acre dairy farm. There may be options but maybe that is not the best option for everybody. I am not suggesting that as an option. It goes back to dignity, culture and choices.
We are absolutely reliant on farmers to protect a lot of biodiversity, including wild birds. What ends up happening is the changing of goalposts, changing of payments and insufficient payments being made to farmers to actually provide these ecosystem services. As for the nature restoration law, which I think will be a positive thing for biodiversity, climate and water quality down the road, we must ensure that farmers are paid very well for doing this. Whether it is in ACRES general or even in the co-operative projects, as far as I can see farmers are not paid enough to provide those ecosystem services that the public will benefit from. We need to get straight on ensuring that people are paid and compensated well for what they are doing and that there is dignity in that, too.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.
Dr. Elaine McGoff:
Can I make one comment? In terms of Teagasc and multispecies sward, protected urea and low emission slurry spreading, LESS, can I suggest that the committee puts that question directly to that agency and to others, such as the Department of agriculture, as to how effective those measures are for nitrogen?
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I can assure Dr. McGoff that everyone who comes in here gets direct questions. It is not only the witnesses here today that get rigorous questions. As she and her colleagues have said, there is no point in availing of misguided information. We need to improve water quality and I want to maintain our agricultural structure. Farmers have put in a lot of money and are prepared and willing to adapt their practices. At the end of the day, no one loves the environment around their farm as much as the farmer does.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am not blaming environmental groups whatsoever, do not get me wrong.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is a serious bone of contention I have had over a long number of years. It happened while I was in farmer politics. This was brought in by the Commission.
Farmers were delighted with it at the time. I saw farmers in hilly areas getting €12,000 or €13,000 out of a hen harrier scheme, but it only lasted for two or three years. There is virtually no one getting money out of it now.
Ms Karin Dubsky:
There are two points. Around the nature restoration law, there is a fear, based on past experience, that things could go really wrong. I believe the lessons learned are that it must be more participatory. The national Government is to make a plan on how to do this and it cannot be left to a few people. It must be exemplary and participatory, where all the options are looked at, as well as what guarantees there are so that there are no bad surprises. It is something that we will all own. I have seen other schemes that also did not work, like the ground nesting sand heaps for bees. That did not work but it still stayed. The point is valid, but it is up to the elected representatives to ensure that the restoration plan has adequate oversight and that is a good plan.
Professor John Sweeney:
If there is to be any hope of retaining the derogation at the current level, it is imperative that enforcement of the current regulations is strictly observed. One of the questions this committee may ask Teagasc is to comment on recent reports about the movement of slurry not being according to regulations, for example, and the issues of paper farms being used to disguise the same amount of slurry being spread on existing farms above and beyond the derogation limit. Those are things that the Commission will be interested in. It has already appointed a number of inspectors to look closely at the Dutch case where it found derogation being breached in these kinds of areas. It is important for the committee to find out and get a commitment from Teagasc that existing regulations will be enforced ruthlessly, because farmers will depend on that. The farmers who are doing the right thing do not wish to be compromised by any kind of breach of the regulations elsewhere.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I accept that fully, Professor Sweeney. In fairness to Teagasc, it is not the regulatory body. The county councils are the ones that are meant to enforce the closed periods for slurry and so forth. I accept fully that there is a need for more surveillance, most definitely. There is no point in having a limit if it is not being exercised.
I thank everyone for their participation. We will adjourn this evening's meeting. The next public meeting will be at 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 22 February 2024 when the committee will undertake the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Agriculture Appeals (Amendment) Bill 2024. As there is no further business, the meeting is now adjourned.