Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Wednesday, 24 September 2025
Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture and Food
Nitrates Derogation: Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
2:00 am
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Apologies have been received from Deputies Kenny and Healy-Rae and Senators Brady and Lynch. Before we begin, I wish to bring to the committee's attention that witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means a witness has full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's discretion. 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 giving evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on the 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 members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses 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 the utterances of members participating online in a committee meeting when their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. Members may not participate online in a public meeting from outside the parliamentary precincts. Any attempt to do so will result in the member having their online access removed.
Tá fáilte roimh na finnéithe chuig ár gcéad chruinniú poiblí tar éis an tsamhraidh. The agenda for our first session today is to examine the nitrates derogation. We have one hour and 15 minutes for this discussion. The committee will hear from the following officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine: Mr. Bill Callanan, chief inspector; Mr. Ted Massey; senior inspector; and Dr. Daire Ó hUallacháin, principal officer and ecologist. The opening statements have been circulated to members. I will allow five minutes for the witnesses to read their opening statement into the record, or they can take two minutes to give a brief synopsis of it. We will then proceed to questions.
Mr. Bill Callanan:
I will take the time to read the statement into the record. I thank the committee for affording us the opportunity to attend today to discuss the important topic of the nitrates derogation. Securing a further nitrates derogation is a key priority for the Minister and the Government and is set out as such in the programme for Government. The current EU implementing decision granting Ireland a derogation concludes at the end of the year. Securing a renewal involves a detailed process, including developing a nitrates action programme, which sets down the basic requirements for all farmers. While responsibility for the nitrates action programme lies with the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine plays a significant role. The derogation process also includes making a number of presentations to the EU nitrates committee, which is made up of all member states, securing its support and finally agreement, along with that of the Commission on all aspects. It is the Commission that proposes the implementing decision granting a derogation.
The derogation is contingent on measures to reduce the impact of agriculture on water quality. The legal provisions underpinning the derogation lay down parameters that include a long growing season, crops with high nitrogen requirements and high precipitation or rainfall levels. Ireland’s pasture-based system satisfies these criteria.
The derogation is also dependent on improving water quality. There continues to be an unprecedented and significant level of engagement and support right across the Government, farmers and the broader agrifood industry, who are all focused on the one common objective of improving water quality. Last year, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine published its plan, Water and Agriculture - a collaborative approach, which underpins the work of the Department towards improving water quality - a precursor, as identified, to the delivery of a derogation.
This plan includes supporting farmers in a very targeted way through a free on-farm advisory service whereby approximately 50 advisers are visiting farmers under the ASSAP programme. This is coupled with a €60 million European Innovation Partnership which grant-aids farmers to implement targeted actions above regulatory requirements to improve water quality. Additionally, there are many actions under the ACRES agri-environment scheme supporting this objective. Finally, the plan includes a commitment to introduce an exempted development threshold for stand-alone manure storage under the planning regulations and members will note significant progress to this end recently.
Ireland will have to demonstrate compliance with the habitats directive. The Minister, Deputy Heydon, met Commissioner Roswall yesterday regarding Ireland’s nitrates derogation and this follows a visit by senior officials from the Directorate-General for Environment, DG ENV, in recent weeks. By way of update on the process required in securing a derogation, Ireland has now made three presentations at the EU nitrates committee in Brussels, the most recent of which was last Friday.
Engagement with national stakeholders has also been a key component of our approach. Since this committee’s meeting in late May, the agriculture water quality working group has met a further four times. From the start of this year, the group has been very much involved in developing the measures for the next nitrates action programme. We are now at the stage where the Ministers, Deputies Heydon and Browne, are reflecting and finalising the proposed measures that Deputy Browne will bring forward for public consultation in the coming weeks under the nitrates action programme alongside the draft Natura impact statement and the draft strategic environmental assessment that must accompany it.
Over the coming months, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the broader Government will continue to work together and to engage with stakeholders at a national and European level on the next nitrates action programme and the nitrates derogation. That will ensure we get the best possible outcome for Ireland post 2025.
My colleagues and I are happy to answer any questions members may have about progress being made on this important issue.
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The whole issue around the nitrates directive is hugely concerning for many farmers. They want to ensure every effort is made to hold on to that derogation for us.
In relation to the habitats directive, the Minister proposed river catchment analysis done by ecologists within the Department. Are there many people in the Department to do the likes of that? How long will it take?
Mr. Bill Callanan:
I will bring the Chairman back to the beginning. The nitrates derogation is contingent on having a nitrates action programme. That has to be agreed and when in place, from a regulatory point of view, the opportunity to secure a derogation is available to a country. It has always been a requirement for us to comply with the habitats directive. That has been the case since the instigation. I have been involved since 2010 and that has been done at plan level. The overall nitrates action plan is accompanied by a Natura assessment and an appropriate assessment under the habitats directive.
Case law has evolved since then, particularly driven by the 2018 Dutch nitrates case, which identified we need to consider this at a more granular level to ensure we are compliant. Its direction was that agricultural activity may constitute an impact in terms of Natura. We are challenged by that requirement and are looking to develop a plan to generate compliance with that specific requirement for habitats compliance at a more granular level than just the plan. We propose to do it at a catchments level. We have engaged Daire Ó hUallacháin, who is originally from Teagasc. We have also engaged an external consultant on how to design that.
The next stage, which the Chairman is talking about, is conducting such assessments. That is a job of work yet to be determined in terms of how it is constructed, the requirements involved and the time period it will take to deliver it.
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
So there is an unknown all the time.
Mr. Bill Callanan:
There is an element of work to be done on that. The Minister has been clear we will need time do that and do it robustly. It is important that all farmers are treated equally as a result of that and that we do not have, for example, outcomes for a particular catchment area that was selected early being known before everybody else's. All farmers should receive outcomes regarding assessments of catchments at the same time. That is our objective.
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
So one catchment will be done at a time but all the results will be published at the end.
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Has the Department not taken a measure of how much work will be involved or how many people will be needed to do it?
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
How many ecologists does the Department currently have?
Mr. Bill Callanan:
We have a significant number of ecologists in the Department working on afforestation licensing. That is a combination of in-house and people being procured for that work. For this action, we will have to scope out how many ecologists will be needed for detailed assessment to be done.
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
So there is not a measure taken of that yet.
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The decision times are at the end of the year. It is getting tight.
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. I will be brief as I want to give members an opportunity. Mr. Callanan could not cover everything in his opening statement but one big ingredient recently was the EPA report. That was not helpful to Ireland's case and will be a significant player. What happened there? Where is the move? How can that case be-----
Mr. Ted Massey:
Yes. Last week the EPA published early insight data covering 20 rivers we know to be representative of the national situation. The report was solely focused on nitrate concentration in those rivers and showed an increase on last year. The report for last year was very positive in that it showed our levels were the lowest they had been since about 2016. This year, concentration had gone up but the EPA report states that requires further investigation because there are a number of things that influence the concentration in water. They are weather, agricultural land management and the nutrient or source load present in the environment.
When we consider the EPA data, we must first set it in context. While it is obviously disappointing the levels went up, they are only marginally higher than in 2022 for the same rivers and well below the same period in 2023. We should also think back to the weather in the first six months of the year, which was relatively dry. In many of those rivers, the rate of flow was less than it would have been historically in a normal year. The rate of flow will have an influence on the concentration of nutrients and on how nutrients move through the soil, in terms of rainfall.
There is a job of work to be done to identity what has happened there. One thing I would take from the report is nitrates concentration increased in all those rivers in all areas of the country. It was not just in areas which tend to have more derogation farmers; it was in all areas. That, to my mind, points to the weather having a greater role to play.
Mr. Bill Callanan:
Trends in water quality have to be looked at over a period. We had an improving trend until 2015-16; then there was a period a negative trend in water quality.
Certainly over the past couple of years, that has reverted to an improving trend overall, although we all remain disappointed in terms of the initial data for 2025.
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Mr. Callanan. I have two speakers offering and I am sure everyone wants to come in. We will keep to seven minutes each and try to keep tight to the time. I call Deputy Aird.
William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I welcome the witnesses. They are not coming with the positive news we would hope to have as regards what was done in the rivers and all of that scientific evidence. I hope the next time around the news might be better. I cannot understand how we, or some people, are talking about the end of the year. We do not have a hope of doing all that work by the end of the year. I presume we will get an extension to the derogation. I presume the Minister and his officials have discussed all that.
As a farmer, I know how important the derogation is to the Irish food industry and the wider community that feeds off the farming community. The derogation allows us farmers to maximise the advantages of our grass-based system, about which we have all spoken over the years. I have written down six questions that I would like the witnesses to answer. I will go through them quickly. Will the Department provide an account of the engagement with the European Commission around the reduction in the derogation limit from 250 kg N/ha to 220 kg N/ha? Will the Department confirm that all possible political and technical avenues have been exhausted to maintain the 250 kg N/ha limit?
What scientific basis did the Commission refer to when requiring Ireland to reduce the derogation limit? Will the Department publish the assessment it has made of the economic impact the derogation cut will have on all farmers in Ireland, according to the main commodity, and on the rural hinterland, particularly in the high-production counties to which the Cathaoirleach alluded a moment ago?
Has the Department proposed alternative compliance tools to the Commission to demonstrate Ireland's environmental progress, such as neutral catchment, precision fertiliser use, which we are doing, and the considerable investment we all made in slurry management? That investment was made on every farm that was involved in any way with cattle throughout the Twenty-six Counties.
In the interests of transparency, will the Department publish all documentation and correspondence it has had with the European Commission in respect of the nitrates derogation? Will the Department outline how often it has engaged with Irish MEPs, the permanent representation in Brussels and the Commission on our behalf during this process? Could more political pressure be applied before we come to an outcome? Those are the questions I present today.
Mr. Bill Callanan:
In general terms, we must recognise that we are all on the one page in respect of the importance of the continuance of the derogation and the availability. It is recognised within the programme for Government. As I set out in the opening statement, it is a priority indicated by the Minister in terms of all engagements.
On political pressure, the simple reality is that this matter has been raised by the Taoiseach with the Commission President, Commissioner von der Leyen, and I do not think you can get any higher in terms of bringing political pressure to bear to highlight the importance to Ireland of a continued derogation.
The Deputy asked about correspondence. The Department always has an open policy in respect of its correspondence.
William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Will Mr. Callanan answer the questions in the order they were asked? I thank him.
William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is grand. I will remind Mr. Callanan if he has not. I thank him.
Mr. Bill Callanan:
The Deputy asked about the reduction from 250 kg N/ha to 220 kg N/ha. In negotiating a nitrates derogation, we must recognise that the process is very detailed. It requires presentations to the nitrates committee. It also comprises engagement with the Commission, which ultimately proposes the derogation for vote and require confidence that it will not have a negative impact. As part of that, in the decision of 2022 there was the inclusion by the Commission quite late in the day of a caveat stating that water quality had disimproved. The Commission wanted evidence to ensure we were going to get back on the right track in that regard. Let us call a spade a spade: cow numbers had expanded significantly in the previous period. Water quality had generally declined. The Commission wanted comfort that Ireland was on the correct path to improve water quality. That was the key driver in terms of the-----
Mr. Bill Callanan:
-----drop from 250 kg N/ha to 220 kg N/ha. We must recognise that, going way back to 1992, the same principle of declining water quality across the Benelux countries was the rationale for the introduction of the directive at that time. It became a clear request and demand from the Commission in terms of the granting of a derogation. That was the basis for the reasoning. It was quite linked to an interim review, with specific conditions identifying those areas where water quality was declining.
William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am watching the time. Will Mr. Callanan answer the second question? I only have a limited time. What scientific basis did the Commission refer to when requiring Ireland to reduce the derogation? What did it say to us?
William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
My third question related to the assessment made.
William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
My next question was about the Department's proposal of alternative compliance tools to the Commission.
William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I asked whether in the interests of transparency the Department would publish all documentation and correspondence it had with the European Commission in respect of the nitrates derogation.
Mr. Bill Callanan:
I want to be clear. There is a reality here that as policy is in progress and engagement with the Commission is ongoing, etc., it is not appropriate to publish. Thereafter, it will be a matter for the Commission in terms of any letters it would have sent to us and a matter for the Department in respect of any letters that would have been sent to the Commission. There is a process there.
William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am coming to my last question.
Mr. Bill Callanan:
All policy, until it is concluded, complies with those principles. It is a matter for the Commission to decide about any engagement material it has sent to us. Generally, there would not be a decision on that until after the conclusion of the whole process. It is the same with any policy.
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Commission would not be able to share it while the process is under way. It seems that afterwards, we should be able to see correspondence.
William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I can come back. My time is up.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I welcome the officials. They are often here in an us-and-them scenario. However, I accept, as I think everybody out there does, that we are all on the one side on this issue. There is nothing to be gained from us arguing with them or telling them what they already know. I accept the bona fides of the Department and Minister. I have discussed the issue at length with the Taoiseach and Mr. Callanan is quite right that he has taken it to the highest level with Ms von der Leyen. We are all on the one page on the issue. How we get it over the line is the question. We need to show that united front. If can play around with a Winston Churchill quote, never before were so many dependent on so few. This is not just about derogation farmers. Let us consider the amount of money invested in stainless steel in creameries and processing plants that will not function without milk. Let us consider the amount of jobs that those processors have created. There are people out there who probably do not know what a derogation is but whose jobs are in jeopardy if we do not maintain the derogation. With that in mind, I am not going to give the witnesses a hard time but they must keep up the battle.
I have a few questions that are mainly based on correlation and what has happened with us being requested to do the appropriate assessment. Deputy Aird has covered the time issue. This derogation ends on 31 December. We are in the mouth of October now. There is no way all the appropriate assessments in the catchment areas are going to be done. Are we talking to the Commission about an extension? What do the witnesses see?
There has to be a plan B for 1 January. Is there a plan B? What if somebody out there, in his or her wisdom, decides that this has to be done before we can get our next derogation and there will be no extension in the interim? Common sense will say that will not happen but we all know where common sense comes into a lot of these things.
How much of this has been influenced by the An Taisce case, if the witnesses can comment? I appreciate that they probably cannot.
On the EPA results last week, Mr. Massey rightly said that this needed to be looked at over a period of time. It does not make sense from an agricultural perspective to say the nitrates content in the water is up when we have proof that the use of artificial fertiliser is down. Has anybody ever shown correlation between stocking density and water quality in the specific areas where there are derogations and the stock numbers are high? I do not think that correlation has been shown. Is that not a case we have to make, in that there are more pollutants than agriculture and dairy farming?
The witnesses might comment on those questions and if I have time left, I have another couple. I want to hear their comments on what I have said. I know they cannot disclose during the negotiation process much of the communication that has happened, but surely to God there is conversation at this stage about an interim extension while we are doing what we were asked to do. We have never said we will not do what the Commission has asked us to do.
Mr. Bill Callanan:
On the bigger general question about our approach, the Commission has been clear in its request of us. We have to provide assurances of compliance with the habitats directive. Is this linked to the An Taisce case? Not particularly, as the Commission side is very clear. Effectively, the 2018 Dutch nitrates case saw a ruling, which has subsequently been reaffirmed in quite a number of other rulings, about the requirement to assess where it may have an impact. In that situation, the Commission's request of Ireland - it is naturally a matter for Ireland to demonstrate compliance - is to prove we are taking account of that ruling within our process and procedure of granting derogations. Quite simply, a derogation process requires us to grant consent. When we are granting consent, we have to comply with the habitats directive. Ultimately, that is what this plan has to address.
I will be clear. We have articulated very clearly about the reality of having all that work done by 1 January and what is needed to do that level of work. We have a lot of experience in the Department about appropriate assessment, particularly in light of the requirements on the forestry side. We are identifying the need for a plan in terms of generating compliance and how that might be done; we can articulate how that is based on a catchment approach. Those are conversations we have been having about demonstrating the approach to it.
In terms of pressures, the reality is agriculture is identified by the EPA as a significant pressure in locations. That is a factor of all farming types. It should not just be identified as simply an issue of high stocking rates. There is no doubting that in our minds. When we grant a derogation, we have additional conditions and requirements that are placed on farmers in derogation to effectively mitigate some of that. All sectors will have to contribute towards that objective of improving water quality. That is demonstrated in the collaborative approach we have taken and the engagement with all the various sectors on what can be done by all of them. However, there is a pressure associated with agriculture and we have to mitigate that.
Dr. Daire Ó hUallacháin:
I can come in on water quality and this reiterates what Mr. Massey said. While the results were disappointing for the first six months, they need to be taken into a longer trend context but we also must take flow into account. Water flow was significantly reduced for the first six months of the year, particularly for March and April. We could have more or less the same number of nutrients moving in the system as we had last year, but because the flow has been a lot lower, the concentration could be higher. Ultimately, the load might be smaller or lower but the concentration is higher. That could be one of the-----
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Sorry to interrupt but my time is nearly up. Would that not be taken into consideration? For want of a better phrase, let us call them laboratory conditions. I remember from my own college days that, if one is doing a test, one takes the variables into consideration. If there is low flow, one factors that into the results. We seem to blame the farmer and it does not matter whether there was a low flow, high flow, what the weather conditions were or whatever. There seems to be a little bit of that going on.
Dr. Daire Ó hUallacháin:
I cannot really comment on how the EPA report its results but for a long time now, it has been reporting in relation to the concentration of water bodies. To allow comparison with previous data, it still needs to report on concentration. In more recent years and towards the end of year, it reports on the load from our 20 major catchments. It might be useful to wait until the end of the year to see what the load for this year is relative to last year and compare that to longer term trends. By providing both concentration and load, one gets a better overall picture of the amount of nutrients moving through the system.
Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for coming in today and making their presentation. Water quality is important and vital, as is protecting the farming community going forward. That is why it is important to try to see if it is at all possible to at least maintain what we have. On water quality in the EPA report, from 2024 to 2025, was there a massive change in water quality or was it small? The EPA was happy in 2024 but there now seems to be more of a concern in 2025. Will someone outline how much of a change there was and was it major over that period?
Mr. Bill Callanan:
I will give an overview. We are getting fixated on one year. The reality is the Commission looks at this over a period and at the overall trend. We need to reflect on that because, ultimately, that is the arbiter of whether we are going in the right direction in terms of water quality. Post 2024 and 2025, the water quality trend was not moving in the right direction. That has improved over recent years, albeit we accept that the preliminary finding for 2025 is not positive.
Mr. Ted Massey:
To build on that reply, the data published last week by the EPA shows a 16% increase in nitrate concentration in those rivers involved in its monitoring compared to 2024. In 2024, however, it was down 10% on what was a much higher level in 2023. As Mr. Callanan has said, it is very important not to become fixated on short periods of time when we are talking about water because we know nitrate levels will fluctuate. The Minister, Deputy Heydon, has been very measured in his response to the EPA data for 2024 because we knew weather and other factors could lead to data going the other way but it is important to look at the long term trend, as Mr. Callanan has said. If one looks at the EPA reports of recent years on nitrate concentration, they confirm there is a declining number of rivers with elevated nitrate levels overall. While our data for the first six months of this year is obviously a concern, we have to look at the longer term data because that is what will count.
Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Very good. The other side of it is the question of whether agriculture is totally responsible for the water quality issues. Could there be some other issues out there that are affecting water quality? We are well aware of wastewater. Could that be an issue, with the farmers maybe getting blamed for its effects? Will one of the witnesses respond to that?
Mr. Bill Callanan:
In its reporting, the EPA has identified where the pressures are modelled and coming from. Agriculture is the largest but there are also wastewater, forestry and other impacts that have to be taken into account. That depends on the river catchment that is impacted. In broad terms, the EPA has identified that there are pressures from various sources. That is clear. Agriculture is not the sole pressure in terms of water quality but the evidence highlights that agriculture has a part to play in improving water quality. That is undeniable.
Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It has a part to play but my belief is other organisations have a part to play as well to get water quality up to a good standard.
Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
As regards the public consultation, when is that taking place? Is there a date for it and what way is it being done throughout the country?
Mr. Bill Callanan:
The public consultation to which the Deputy is referring is about the nitrates action programme, which comprises the actions that apply to all farmers and not just derogation farmers.
That will commence in a matter of weeks. It is currently with the Ministers, Deputies Browne and Heydon, regarding what measures are being put out for public consultation.
Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
So we are not exactly sure what measures are going out at the moment.
Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is it going to be possible to maintain what we have - the 250 kg N/ha and 220 kg N/ha rates - as they are?
Mr. Bill Callanan:
All I can articulate is what Ireland's ask is in relation to it. It is very much around maintaining the 220 kg N/ha and 250 kg N/harates. Naturally, there is an engagement process here with the Commission. I cannot pre-empt its side of it. It is clearly Ireland's ask regarding the continuation of derogation.
Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We know it is going to be important for the farming community going forward to try to maintain what we have. We do not want to see rural parts of the country suffering again because of more restrictions put on them. There are a lot of concerns among the farming community. I hope that will not be the situation going forward, so I hope we will be able to maintain what we have while keeping our water qualities at a high standard as well, which is important.
Mr. Bill Callanan:
The only thing I wish to bring to the Deputy's attention is the level of engagement we have had with stakeholders through the water quality group. We have had 28 or 29 meetings at this point with that group in relation to ensuring that all stakeholders are engaged with the process of improving water quality and being kept up to speed on the work we are doing, the engagement we are having, and the necessary evidence we are collating in terms of underpinning Ireland's application for derogation, as well as how we progress on compliance with the habitats directive. It has been unprecedented in my history, and I was involved in the 2010 negotiations on derogation, so I have been around for a while in relation to this. We are hugely engaged with all stakeholders, including industry, processors and farmers, to ensure that everybody is fully cognisant of the work that needs to be done and the work we are doing.
Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We are also well aware, in fairness, of what the stakeholders have invested in trying to the meet criteria that are required and the big investment that has gone in.
Natasha Newsome Drennan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is a bit like school buses. As we get back to school, it is the first morning of school that we find out whether we have a got a ticket. I understand and we all agree that we have to do our best to keep this. It is all about water quality, which we need. On the 20 rivers, which I presume are spaced out, do we have information on what rivers are tested and at what positions they are tested? Is it one point in each river? Is it numerous points on each river? It would be handy to know if they were on the back of a large farm or industrial sites and to have an idea of where the data is being collected. How far back do these reports go? Are they done every six months? Is it a six-month data collection or what way do the reports come out?
Mr. Bill Callanan:
The caution I have is that a number of the questions the Deputy is asking are more relevant to the EPA, which is responsible for the reporting. However, we can draw attention to what is in the reports that have been published. More recently, the EPA has moved towards that six-month timeframe indicative reporting on foot of requests for more timely reporting. That is what has prompted that change. That has only happened in the past couple of years. Last year and this year were the first years that had those six-month reports.
Are the rivers identified? Yes, they are, and they are right around the country. The question of the frequency of sampling is more detailed. Does Dr. Ó hUallacháin wish to come in?
Mr. Ted Massey:
To answer the question what rivers these are, the report published by the EPA last week and which is on its website contains a map clearly showing the location of the 20 rivers. The agency makes the point that it is looking at the monitoring stations located at the most downstream available sites on these rivers. That is the most accurate place to get a true picture of what is happening in that catchment overall. In terms of the frequency of monitoring, I am not sure if the EPA report mentions that. As Mr. Callanan said, that is a question for the EPA.
Natasha Newsome Drennan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It would be good to get a better picture weather-wise if that report was done more frequently. It is easy to out and collect a little bit of water. The figure of 16% may not be 16% on another day if we have heavy rain - that is the idea I am getting. For example, if there is heavy rainfall, are the waters flowing more quickly and is the concentration therefore lower?
Dr. Daire Ó hUallacháin:
I will answer some of these questions. There are thousands of sampling points throughout the country. On the 20 major rivers, as Mr. Massey said, they reflect what is going on in the full catchment because we are now at the outlet. There is continuous data that are capturing flow for every day in these major catchments. They are collecting data on nutrients monthly, typically. For other sites throughout the country, it is being collected quarterly. There are sites throughout the country that are sampled but they are not being sampled for nutrients. However, they are being sampled for ecology because ecology is a reflector or indicator of the water quality.
The EPA would be in a better position to give the full suite of measures. All of these data are available on the EPA website. We should not get overly bogged down on the indicator report it has given. That is reflective of the 20 major rivers for the first six months. It is about the longer term trends for the wider suite of rivers and other parameters. The publication from last week related to nitrogen. There are other reports going to come out relating to phosphorus and ecology as well. We will then get a better full picture of the potential stressors that are in these systems.
Natasha Newsome Drennan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Until we got those levels down, we are in a bit of bother when we are trying to fight our case.
Mr. Bill Callanan:
The way I have described it to farmers is that we have a unique production system in the EU in Ireland as a grass-based grain-fed system without outdoor grazing, etc. With the likes of the UK having left, that is not commonplace across Europe. Many of them are housed system. However, as a member of the European Union, we are not unique in our commitment to the achievement of water framework directive, which requires the achievement of good status. Neither are we unique in our requirements to comply with the habitats directive. That is universal. We have to charter a pathway to ensure compliance with the requirements of those directives. That is common to all, but not in how we do it because we have an outdoor-based system in Ireland.
Natasha Newsome Drennan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If we use France as an example, is it doing the same testing as Ireland? Are we the better boys in the class than France is? Where do we rank in the world?
Mr. Bill Callanan:
Generally speaking, our water would be in the top third of European member states. I think we are number 13. It depends on whether it is ground water, river water, etc. We are not best in class, but we are certainly a long way from worst in class for our overall water quality. I have been involved in this since 2010. At that time, Germany was applying for derogation. At one point, the Po Valley of Italy applied for derogation. Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Ireland and the UK, including Northern Ireland, were all applying for the availability of a derogation. Most of those countries have now moved away from applying for a derogation. Germany no longer applies. At this time, Ireland and the Netherlands are the only countries with a derogation. The Dutch one concludes at the end of this year. It has written to the Commission but it has not moved at the pace Ireland is at with presentations to the nitrates committee, which is a necessary precursor to securing a positive vote.
Natasha Newsome Drennan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There was recently a meeting. When is the next presentation the witnesses have to make?
Mr. Bill Callanan:
There are four meetings in the year.
We have done the three presentations, which are necessary requirements. It remains to be seen as to whether we face a vote, effectively, in December at the next meeting. That is effectively contingent on a proposal from the Commission in relation to a continuation of the derogation.
Natasha Newsome Drennan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Mr. Callanan very much.
Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The witnesses are very welcome today. It is such an important issue. Like Senator Paul Daly said, I appreciate their work in relation to this. I appreciate a lot has been answered, and I will keep it brief. Perhaps this is for the EPA really, but there is a huge amount of energy and focus on farmers when it comes to water quality. In all of the reports and so on, it is all focusing on farmers and talk about agricultural catchment areas and the monitoring of farmers, etc. Is Mr. Callanan satisfied that industry and the EPA is monitoring industry and other sectors as well as it is monitoring farmers? A several pronged approach is necessary here. My fear and concern is that it seems we are focusing nearly exclusively on farmers in relation to it. What engagement, contribution, work and collaboration has the Department with the Department of housing in respect of other areas, particularly around industry?
Mr. Bill Callanan:
In terms of our engagement with stakeholders, this is a question that arises. We have added the EPA into the water quality working group to identify how it has come up with its modelling and how the water quality stats are being compiled so that it is very open and transparent. As we have set out, there are many pressures, and industry is one of them. Agriculture is also a pressure. However, we do have to recognise that the evidence and data that is being collected at catchment level is growing exponentially. That has to be understood by farmers as well.
If the Deputy looks at our objectives in terms of engaging with farmers, they have been around a number of clear targets that we wanted to do. Number one was whether we have the right actions in the right place. We divide that into three categories. First, have we the right legislation in place, which is the action programme and the requirements of derogation farmers? Have we the right support, that is, the advisers, etc., as I put out in the EIP? Have we the support structures, such as, for example, the Teagasc advisory programme to assist farmers? However, we have to remember that there is scrutiny by the EPA in relation to the other pressures as well, such as licensed units. There is a hell of a lot of scrutiny for those in terms of the licensing conditions in which they operate as establishment. There is also scrutiny by the EPA of wastewater treatment plants, etc. There is, therefore, increased scrutiny on all sectors, and agriculture cannot deny its responsibility in terms of ensuring what is done in our sector is towards that objective of improving water quality rather than asking what other sectors are doing.
I describe that in many ways the nitrates action programme is around almost ensuring that the best practices are applied by all farmers. When we look back, committees like this would have debated the instances of calendar farming, by way of example, which was very emotive as everybody will recall. Now, the reality is that there is a recognition by the vast majority of farmers of the value of slurry and that it should be applied at the right time, and they are quite annoyed, let us say, when they see non-compliance by others in terms of poor practice. That is the reality of the action programme. It is effectively ensuring that the best practices are applied by all farmers. That is the way we would look at it. I described it at one stage as a backstop, effectively, from a legislative point of view. We know a lot of our best farmers are ahead of the standard in terms of whether it is the use of their slurries, nutrient management on their farms, ensuring there are no losses coming from farmyards in terms of management of rainwater, etc. In simple terms, all sectors are being scrutinised now like never before. The data is at a greater granularity now than ever before.
I spoke at an EPA conference last year, and the Local Authority Waters Programme, LAWPRO, did a presentation afterwards. The level of data and knowledge at catchment level is growing exponentially. Farmers need to be aware and educated of water quality locally to understand how their practice on their farms impacts on water quality locally. That is where the likes of the Teagasc programme for water is very beneficial, the signpost series, etc., in terms of that education piece.
Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I appreciate that this may have already been asked as I was in the Dáil at the start of the meeting, but can Mr. Callanan give farmers an outline of the timeframe over the next few months in terms of engagements with the Department, the Commission, etc.? When will farmers have an update on this?
Mr. Bill Callanan:
We are meeting the water quality group very regularly. That is under the chairmanship of Mr. John Comer, who is an independent chair. As we said, eight meetings have been held this year. We constantly update the stakeholders in terms of our level of engagement and where we will step out this process from here until the end of the year, and that will continue.
Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What about the Commission and the extension?
Mr. Bill Callanan:
By way of example, as the Deputy will note, the Minister issued a press release that Commissioner Roswall will in the months ahead come on a visit to Ireland. We already had a visit from the Commission officials last week, including the visit to a derogation farm, to ensure there is a very good understanding on that side of the table in terms of what our ask is and what the conditions are in Ireland. Equally, however, it is asking us for assurances in relation to compliance with the habitats that we will have to address.
Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Mr. Callanan.
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We have about a quarter of an hour. Members may have two minutes each.
Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have one very quick question. I thank the witnesses very much for being here and for giving up their time. Mr. Callanan said that this has to be decided by 31 December. Is there a chance that it is going to be extended or are farmers going to have a situation come 1 January where this could be completely pulled until everything is put together, if that falls after 31 December?
Mr. Bill Callanan:
We have been very clear that a lacuna or a period without derogation is not an option here in relation to it. In terms of voting, to remind people, there are four meetings in the year and, previously, we did not have a vote until March. That is not the end of the world in terms of availability of a derogation because it covers the year in question. We have never gone beyond March, but it has happened that we have had a March vote rather than a December vote.
Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Therefore, Mr. Callanan will be pushing for an extension if it is a thing that-----
Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. I thank Mr. Callanan. I just wanted to check for the farmers if there was going to be a possibility come 1 January that it was not in place, and we are pushing to make sure. It is great that we are all heading towards and have the same goals, which is amazing. It is just that we will have those farmers who are going to be waiting for the news and the stress it will cause waiting just to know that-----
Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is great. I thank Mr. Callanan so much.
William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will ask a question on the habitats. There were a couple of issues that arose. We can work to get down to test the quality of the water and we can identify the source eventually, and we will get there. However, a habitat is something that I cannot get my head around because a habitat is something that if we touch it, we have broken the habitat. Can Mr. Callanan just explain that when he gets a second?
We are talking today about free flow and rivers. Looking back at this country 50 or 60 years ago, I can remember the dredger as a little boy. We used to love to see the dredger coming. The dredger is gone; it has ceased operation. The rivers are all overgrowing. There are trees lying in the rivers. The debris and sludge in the rivers and everything are nearly up to the top of the banks at this stage.
The flow in rivers is nearly gone completely. Anybody will tell you that; just ask any old person about the depth of the bank. I spoke to an 84-year-old man the other night while walking the river with him where he was getting flooded. He told me that, at one time, if someone slid in off the bank, he or she would have to get pulled up out of it. Now, if one is not careful, one could walk off the bank into the river. The water is level with it. Is the likes of that making a difference?
I will say one other thing at this stage. We all know about the number of roads and estates that have been built and all the different developments that have taken place. We also know about all the run-off from the roads. I see it myself when it rains. All of that is going into the one river as well. There is only one river in most towns and villages in this country. In my case, the River Triogue takes every drop of water out of the town of Portlaoise until it joins the River Barrow at two places. Surely, we have to take that into consideration. As was said, it cannot be just the farmer on his own.
Will the Department outline how often it has engaged with Irish MEPs and the permanent representation in Brussels? They will make the decision at the end of the day. That is fierce important. They will vote on this, the very same as us in the Dáil Chamber. Are the officials happy enough that all of that engagement has taken place?
Mr. Bill Callanan:
It is not the MEPs who vote on this. To be clear, it is member states that vote on derogations.
I will draw people's attention to another thing. It is important that farmers understand that the actions they are taking to improve water quality are exactly the same actions that would be required for compliance with the habitats directive. We have to make sure that we are not giving conflicting messages to farmers. A good habitat in terms of water impact is also improved by good actions that are done to improve water quality. Dr. Ó hUallacháin will speak on the other part of that.
William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In a river.
Dr. Daire Ó hUallacháin:
Not just in a river. It is any designated habitat identified by the NPWS, which includes special areas of conservation and special protection areas because those are what are protected under the habitats directive. There are 600 or so of these designated habitats throughout the country. Each habitat is designated for a certain species, or it could be multiple species, with all the qualifying interests. Some river habitats may be designated for salmon, for example, or for otter. Some of our special protection areas are designated for certain bird species. The area of focus we are interested in is those designated habitats that have these sensitive species that are sensitive to nutrients, for example, or pressure from grazing. As Mr. Callanan mentioned, the actions to improve water quality, for example, to reduce sediment, which the Deputy mentioned, or nutrients, will be beneficial from a water quality point of view, but they will also be beneficial for these designated species, such as salmon. We need to consider not just the aquatic habitat. It is also those other habitats that are designated under the habitats directive.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I mentioned the correlation between stocking numbers when we were finishing up previously; we just ran out of time. I accept the point about the different flow and everything but with the previous derogation - I am possibly blinkered on this at times because I am a farmer - we had a mid-term review done in 2023 that resulted in people being reduced from a derogation of 250 kg N/ha to 220 kg N/ha or whatever. The nitrates content of the water was then up. That would nearly say to me there was no correlation between stocking densities and water quality. The figures are there. The EPA has almost proved a point that maybe it did not intend to prove. The officials might comment on that.
My next question was kind of answered in response to Deputy Aird. I know civil servants do not do politics but, going forward from here, who puts what proposal to the Commission? Where does science end and politics begin, or vice versa, in the final decision being made on this? I am asking this based on the officials' experience in 2010. I know they will not break the mould of civil servants saying politicians do politics and they do-----
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
-----but there has to be somewhere where the science becomes political or the politics becomes science. Will the final decision be political? With the support of 26 or 27 states needed to get this over the line, there has to be an amount of politics involved. Will the officials give us an indication as to where that line is between the science and the politics?
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am asking the witnesses based on their experience.
Mr. Bill Callanan:
The reality here is it is important that there be political engagement. All levels of political engagement are happening in relation to engagement with the Commission and its officials, including the invitation to Commissioner Roswall to come to see for herself the circumstances in Ireland. As the Senator knows, Commissioner Hansen was also over here last year. Last week, and also last year, officials engaged with all the stakeholders. We had a very positive engagement at that time.
Let us call a spade a spade, however. To facilitate that political engagement, we must also comply with the required directives. That means the water framework and habitats directives. There is an ask of us in terms of providing assurances, which is something we have conveyed to stakeholders, around compliance with the habitats directive that effectively enables that political engagement, too.
Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for taking the time to be here for this discussion. "Water quality" is the big term we are using here. Deputy Aird asked a question about cleaning rivers and I do not think he got a reply to it. The witnesses might give him a reply on that.
I asked about this previously. My belief is more stakeholders are responsible for what is happening with water quality than agriculture. Is that the officials' view? Is it their view that what is going on is totally down to farming and agriculture?
Mr. Bill Callanan:
We have never suggested that this is down to farming. However, there has been detailed modelling of the various contributions from sectors such as wastewater, forestry, agriculture, etc. All have a part to play in improving water quality and all have a responsibility. I am not sure it will be productive in achieving that objective of improving water quality if there is a kind of blame game of saying "It is not us, it is them" and so forth. Everybody is going to have to play his or her part. Every sector within farming, not just derogation farming, has to play its part.
Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will add to that. It is my honest belief that wastewater is also a big issue throughout the country.
Dr. Daire Ó hUallacháin:
I will try to answer a little in relation to dredging. That falls under the works of the OPW, but it is important to get a balance. While dredging may improve the flow, it damages the habitat. Some of the assessments the EPA undertakes relate to the insects that are living in these habitats. While one might increase the flow and there could be some benefits in relation to concentration, that would potentially damage the habitat that some of these other species, for example, insects, salmon or the like, are depending on. It is not as simple as just increasing the flow to make sure that our concentration is reduced.
Mr. Bill Callanan:
In fairness, it is equally reasonable to assume it is nutrient content and sediment we are looking at in relation to a nitrates action programme, particularly nutrient content, which is really unimpacted by dredging, etc. It is rather about looking at what the flow is from land into watercourses that arise there. The overall action programme is about managing that, making sure farmers are using their slurries most efficiently and there is no leaking from the land into watercourses around the total volume of nutrient, or load, that is arising in agriculture.
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have one very quick question. I will return to that question about catchment and the analysis of the different catchment areas. Some farms will straddle different catchments. They may have an outside farm or, for example, farms in the Bandon-River Lee area may run across the top of Newcestown-Templemartin. The farm could be in both catchment areas. Could farms end up with different outcomes for different catchment areas? How would they handle that?
Mr. Bill Callanan:
I will ask Mr. Massey to deal with that question. That is an issue we have had to grapple with in respect of the 250 kg N/ha to 220 kg N/ha drop as well, where farmers are straddling both areas. Some of the farm may be eligible to apply at 250 kg N/ha and others at 220 kg N/ha. Mr. Massey will go through how we have dealt with that.
Mr. Ted Massey:
It is important to bear in mind that the catchment boundary is defined by what is happening below ground as well as above ground. It may not necessarily follow the topography of what we might expect but, as Mr. Callanan said, we have already had to grapple with that. Following the two-year review under the current derogation, some parts of the country remained at 250 kg N/ha while other areas moved to 220 kg N/ha.
The approach we took was that once part of a LPIS parcel, effectively a field at farm level, remained at the higher stocking rate allowance, then the field remained at the higher allowance. We tried to keep it as simple as possible for farmers. Having mapped the country and categorised each parcel, we then wrote to the farmers who would potentially be impacted by that and set out exactly how each parcel they had applied for, in terms of our direct payments, was going to be impacted by the change. They could see exactly how they would be impacted going forward. We did that in 2023 in advance of the changes that became applicable in 2024. We have done it again this year because a small number of people are moving to 220 kg N/ha with effect from December this year, so we wrote to them as well.
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Thank you. Deputy Fitzmaurice is next.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
For Dr. Ó hUallacháin, the cleanest river in Ireland is the Islands River. About ten diggers cleaned it 12 to 14 years ago. It is one of the best rivers in Ireland. To anyone who talks rubbish about cleaning rivers and says that things will not come back, I say that rivers were cleaned for years and all the different things came back. This myth has to be got rid of. If you do not allow water to flow, you are going to have problems and backlogs.
On the derogation, the feeling, and what we are hearing, is that there is a fair possibility that it will not stop at Christmas and that there will be a two-year thing. I understand what the officials are facing on the habitats directive side of matters. It would probably take four or five years to do what is required on the basis of what they are looking for. If that happens, what will be the strings attached? Can Mr. Callanan explain this to me. There is a change in Europe at the moment. I do not understand it, but Mr. Callanan will know about it. I think it is called RENURE - manure redone. Is that giving scope for something? Is it that we are not counting the slurry in the tank now or what is it? A few years ago, the considerations relating to year-old cattle were changed. The weight for heifers came down to about 55 kg, while it went up to 60 kg for bull weanlings. What was that based on? Everyone is on about nitrates, but no one is talking about phosphates at all. The spread of the latter is caused by sewage treatment plants blasting out stuff into the water in the west of Ireland. We cannot distinguish between human sewage and cattle slurry for phosphorous. The west of Ireland is down as an area that is high in phosphorous. Farmers are being crippled for a reason that the EPA and Irish Water are not tackling. How can we separate that and get accurate figures?
Mr. Bill Callanan:
The first matter was dredging. That is really not of interest to us. We just expressed a response here in relation to habitats, but let us call a spade a spade. Principally, the assessment of habitat compliance here will revolve around that issue of nutrient load, not dredging and so on. It is nutrient load that is controlled under the nitrates action programme. That is what we will be assessing in terms of compliance with the habitats directive.
On what RENURE is, under the nitrates directive there is a limit regarding the organic manure that is applied to land. It is not about the manure that is present, because every pig farmer or large intensive unit can have a lot more nitrate than 170 kg N/ha; it is the amount of manure applied to land. Under RENURE, which was recently positively voted on, nutrient from animal manures that have been converted effectively into a chemical equivalent will not to be counted.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What does that mean?
Mr. Bill Callanan:
I will attempt to explain. About ten years ago, I visited a plant in Holland where slurries were going in the front end and were divided into three components. One was a solid fraction that was going into an anaerobic digestion plant. The second was the liquid fraction which was then going through a process called reverse osmosis to take the nitrates out of it, creating a liquid that was a fertiliser. The third component was water. The water was basically allowed back into the streams and ditches. RENURE facilitates that conversion of organic manure into a processed fertiliser. It will not be counted against the 170 kg N/ha.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Will it help us? If an ordinary farmer has 100 cows and RENURE is coming in, how will it help?
Mr. Bill Callanan:
We are not at that level of processing in Ireland that I would suggest RENURE is going to be of any great advantage to us. There are opportunities in terms of the progression of that technology, the development of anaerobic digestion and the consequent further processing which, I understand, has to apply.
In terms of the changes that were brought in and why they were brought in, the nitrates action programme specifies technical calculations that are done in terms of, for example, the excretion level for every type of animal you can think of - ducks, geese, sheep, cattle, livestock, horses and so on. The excretion data for calves up to 90 days old was recalculated, as was that for those in the two-year-old category. As the Deputy described, the weight for the male went up and that for the female went down. That is all based on a calculation process done by Teagasc based on scientific assessment and the most recent science data. We had also that in respect of dairy cow excretion rates based on the introduction of banding. In other words, we are updating to take account of new science.
On phosphorous, the Deputy is correct that wastewater treatment tends to be a phosphorous issue rather than a nitrates issue. That is modelled by the EPA in terms of where the relevant sources of phosphorous that are going into the system are emanating from. Does Mr. Massey want to comment on RENURE?
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We will need to finish up. I will allow one very brief response.
Mr. Ted Massey:
To explain RENURE in simple terms, the acronym stands for recovered nitrogen from manure products. The amendment to the nitrates directive that was voted on last week in Brussels related to three processes that had been deemed to create product that will behave very similarly to chemical fertiliser nitrogen. They are three very capital-intensive processes and we do not have a manure processing industry here. Our system is based on animals out on grass and nutrient recycling within a holding, which is a very sustainable system. In the short term at least, I do not foresee us having the capacity or the volume of nutrients to justify the level of investment that would be required to create processed manure products in terms of that RENURE amendment.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Would a by-product of anaerobic be worth considering?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Would it have to be animal manure?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Right.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Who keeps track of that?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Who keeps track of the overall thing?
William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What about the river that was clean, the cleanest river we have? That is contradiction as regards what was said to me.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Could I ask one question?
Dr. Daire Ó hUallacháin:
Can I just reply there? I said I am unfamiliar with the river in question. I stand by the fact, as I said at the time, that while you may increase the flow, you can damage the habitat by dredging. You can impact the insects that are in that habitat, and insects are one of the indicators that are used by the EPA.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Every river recovers. That is what I am saying. I saw it happen with the Islands River. Anyone can look it up under the EPA and what it is. One question I have----
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
No, we have gone over time.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is about exported slurry.
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We have another group coming in. I want to thank members for keeping it tight as regards the time. On behalf of the committee, I thank the officials for their preparation and for their answers and discussion today.