Mr. Thomas Ryan:

A question that comes to mind is whether a farmer has a tool today to be able to effect change positively on the farm in terms of the measurements here. I refer to point three in our submission. We are saying that every farmer should be supported to develop a nutrient-use score with a code of practice for each sector, so at farm level, we can say every one of our farm family suppliers has a carbon footprint number. We all know through the Teagasc 12-point plan what actions we can take to effect that number positively and, by extension, reduce the carbon footprint.

Today at farm level, no farm, except during a monitored-farm programme or an exemplar-type programme, uses a nutrient use score. They do not have a baseline in terms of something positive that they can start from to reduce their carbon footprint, such as a nutrient-use score or a surplus figure that they have for the farm on which they can act and take the necessary actions. When we look at the data points, you get that nutrient score figure, you reduce it by a third and you considerably reduce the end losses through the urine patches in the field. There is then a direct link with water quality. I would argue that today farmers do not have the tools they need. We are talking about models, tools and everything else. We do not have the basic tool required to positively impact water quality. That is a big gap. It is a big gap to ourselves in Dairy Industry Ireland. We positively engaged with ICBF, Teagasc and Bord Bia to get that in place. We are working towards possibly having such a figure by July and driving it through the ICBF report and what goes with that. However, this is a fundamental that should be here and in the year 2024, we are pulling the sector together to make it happen.

If we look at the significant changes, and I can only speak for Tirlán where we have seen a 6.3% reduction in our carbon footprint since 2018, imagine the kind of improvements we will be able to record and report on when we give farmers the basic tool to be able to effect change positively. That is a fundamental thing that could positively come out in terms of a recommendation. It is something we would be very supportive of.

The other point that comes to mind is around the good status. It is worth remembering a point that Mr. Mulvihill mentioned at the very beginning. We are in the top three when it comes to water quality at European level. That should not to be heard as a reason for inaction. Of course, there are markers and strong indicators of challenge and that is why we have projects like Slaney, we have Mulcair and so many more right across right across the country. We, as co-ops, are positively stepping in beside them because we know change is required. Are the models being used peer reviewed? If they are, that is good. Have they been independently published? I know we are constantly challenged here. If a report comes out, it would be said that, "You would say that". That is why the work that DII is leading on around the socioeconomic impact of a potential move and change in the derogation is being prepared by EY. It has been commissioned and will be completed by EY because the output of that has to be independent and strong enough that it allows us to say when a decision is being made in the case of Tirlán, for example, that we have to think about the 19,200 jobs that Tirlán are supporting and think about the €5.5 billion in economic activity in addition to all the environmental activities happening through the Slaney, ASSAP and everything that we are all driving on. They need to look at that in the round. Give us a basic tool to effect change positively.