Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses. Before we begin, I bring to their 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 a 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. They 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 are to give evidence from a location outside of the parliamentary precincts are asked to note they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on the matter.

The witnesses are all very welcome there today. On the agenda for this session is the topic of the supports and resources needed for private advisory service providers to deliver effective advice on nitrates and water quality improvements. I am conscious that this session is going ahead the day after the significant decision by the nitrates committee to allow a three-year extension to the derogation, giving a level of certainty for farmers and time to conduct assessments. I am also conscious of the possible changes for people in the four catchment areas, those of the Blackwater and the Three Sisters, after 2028.

Today, the committee will hear from officials from Teagasc: Professor Frank O'Mara, director; Professor Stan Lalor, director of knowledge transfer; and Mr. Mark Gibson, head of outreach and innovation. They are all very welcome. From the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, we are joined by: Mr. Bill Callanan, chief inspector, and Ms Odile Evans, agricultural inspector in the area of water and air quality. Cuirim fáilte rompu. The witnesses' opening statements have been circulated to members. I will give the witnesses five minutes to read them out before we move on to questions and answers.

Mr. Bill Callanan:

I thank the committee for affording us the opportunity to attend today to discuss supports and resources for private advisers in delivering effective advice on nitrates and water quality. The significant level of engagement that exists right across government, farmers and the broader agrifood industry to improve water quality remains extremely important. That was evidenced in our success yesterday. It is something we must seek to build on and develop to secure a long-term sustainable future for Ireland’s agrifood industry.

Ireland’s sixth nitrates action programme comes into effect at the start of next year, on 1 January. It contains several regulatory and non-regulatory measures aimed at improving water quality. To achieve improvements in water quality from an agricultural perspective, we need to use the optimum combination of measures across regulation, incentives and knowledge transfer, including awareness-raising actions. The next nitrates action programme aims to achieve this optimum. Importantly in the context of today’s discussion, knowledge transfer and awareness raising will be key elements in that nitrates action programme. These elements have been developed to reflect stakeholder views and discussions that took place at the agriculture water quality working group earlier this year as well as discussions with the Agricultural Consultants Association.

Awareness building to date has included the agricultural sustainability support and advisory programme, ASSAP, the actions of the Local Authority Waters Programme, LAWPRO, the Better Farming for Water programme and training requirements for derogation farmers. These actions will be continued throughout the sixth nitrates action programme. A water quality knowledge transfer and awareness-raising programme will also be established under the sixth nitrates action programme. This will target farmers, accredited farm advisers and other professionals who interact with farmers every day. The programme will involve the roll-out of training for all accredited farm advisory service, FAS, advisers in the first quarter of 2026, which will be complemented by additional training later in the year, as considered necessary. With the objective of having a consistency of messaging and improved overall awareness around actions to reduce agriculture’s impact on water quality, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine will also work with the agrifood industry to provide training regarding water quality for professionals who service the farming industry but who are not FAS accredited. In addition, the Department will seek to work with institutions providing third level courses in agriculture or agricultural science with a view to ensuring the next generation of farmers and their advisers are fully aware of best practices to minimise potential risks to water arising from agricultural activity. As part of the sixth nitrates action programme, the Department will also issue an information pack to farmers in 2026 regarding their own local water quality and simple steps they can take on the farm to reduce pressure on water.

As the committee can see, there is a lot of work taking place in this area, in line with the Department’s plan, Water and Agriculture: A collaborative approach, which was published in late 2024. With that in mind, a water quality training steering committee has been established by the Department. Drawing on the best available expertise, the committee includes representatives from the Agricultural Consultants Association, ACA, Teagasc, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and the Local Authorities Water Programme, LAWPRO. The objective of this group is to co-ordinate the proposed training to ensure it is delivered in the optimum manner to meet the needs of advisers and farmers and ultimately build on the current unprecedented engagement across the sector to improve water quality. Improving awareness and the knowledge base among farmers and advisers regarding water quality will be vital to securing a sustainable future for Ireland’s agrifood sector. My colleagues and I are happy to answer any questions members may have.

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

I wish the Cathaoirleach and members a good afternoon.

This is my first appearance at this committee in this Dáil so I want to wish the Cathaoirleach and the committee well in its business over the course of this Dáil. We welcome the opportunity to contribute to the committee's consideration of the supports and resources needed for private advisory service providers to deliver effective advice on nitrates and water quality improvements. I would not get through our statement in five minutes so I will just give members the gist of it.

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The document will be attached on our website.

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

The first page is an overview of advisory services in Ireland. Teagasc is the nationwide public advisory service, providing services to 44,000 farmers who have an advisory contract with us. To all farmers, including those 44,000, we provide open access to events, to publications and our website etc. Our advisory model includes the provision of a substantial amount of public good and farm development advice in addition to scheme support. The public good advice is in areas like reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving water quality and biodiversity and improving animal welfare. Private agriculture consultants are a central pillar of our agriculture knowledge innovation system in Ireland. The Agricultural Consultants Association, ACA, reports that its members advise over 55,000 farmer clients, which is a big share of the national advisory capacity. They operate commercially and must secure sustainable income from services such as scheme support or any other advice they might give.

Page 2 of the statement outlines what water quality programme and advisory initiatives are ongoing. They include the ASSAP, or agricultural sustainability support and advisory programme, which is a collaborative initiative led by Teagasc with dairy co-ops, meat processors, LAWPRO and Government bodies. There are 56 dedicated water quality advisers in that programme of which 20 are with Teagasc, 30 with the dairy co-ops and six from meat processors. They provide a free, confidential, voluntary service in priority areas for action. ASSAP is about applying the right measure in the right place on a farm-by-farm, catchment-by-catchment basis to achieve water quality improvements. The Farming for Water European Innovation Partnership complements ASSAP by providing funding to farmers for specific water quality actions. Better farming for water is a seven-year national advisory and communication campaign led by Teagasc at the request of the Department and the Minister which is structured around eight actions for change to reduce nitrogen, phosphorous, sediment and pesticide losses at farm, catchment and regional scale.

The next section of the statement looks at the supports for private advisers that Teagasc offers. ConnectEd is a key programme we have. It is a membership-based programme to support private advisers or others outside of Teagasc to receive structured access to research outputs, technical briefings, policy updates, webinars, decision support tools and training. It underpins upskilling for the farm advisory system of accredited advisers and water quality advice.

Another key resource we have is NMP, nutrient management planning, online. That is a digital system used by over 200 private consultants. There is training and telephone support provided for it by Teagasc. ConnectEd membership fees for that start at €250 a year which allows it to be used for 50 clients, or €5 a client and it can be scaled to €450 for 150 clients. Additional client blocks are also available as outlined in the document. We also provide in-person training, weekly signpost webinars, conferences, farm walks, guest talks, private courses and an extensive bank of freely available digital water quality resources and training modules commissioned by the Department. There are 25 modules covering water quality, soil health and nutrient management which are outlined in more detail in the statement.

In terms of collaboration, capacity needs and future opportunities, we have a very good relationship with the private consultants and the ACA. It is a very collaborative relationship. We have joint initiatives such as the agriculture, knowledge and information system co-ordination group survey for improved alignment of advisory provision by private consultants with farmer needs. There is significant potential to harvest the private adviser's countrywide presence and client relationships to deliver all eight of the better farming for water campaign's actions, but realising this potential requires appropriate supports. Developing and maintaining the national advisory tools and digital support systems that Teagasc makes available does place significant demands on Teagasc's financial, technical and human resources. Ongoing investment in capacity, technology and data infrastructure and mechanisms to cover the costs of training and tool access for private advisers is essential.

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We had the opportunity to meet with the consultants before and they highlighted a number of different challenges they were finding with, for example, the nutrient planning, delays in getting data and the challenges that was causing for farmers and a number of different issues. This is an opportunity to tease it out a little further.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming in. I congratulate Mr. Callanan on the news yesterday. I know he put a fair bit of work into that, in fairness. In the line of planners, one thing brought up to us is that in the Department, and similarly for Teagasc and the private planners, when slurry is being exported from one farm to another the guy exporting it gets a text and their planner gets a text and the guy receiving the slurry export might get word but their planner does not. Then, as the year goes on they do not know what is happening. Can that be rectified?

I note in colleges the Department is saying the new agriculture science projects are going to cover water quality. I know from the west of Ireland that with phosphorous you cannot tell the difference between what came from sewage treatment plants and what came from cattle, and phosphorous is showing up in places. Is there any question being asked by the Department about whether the likes of the Environmental Protection Agency could put an outflow monitor on all the sewage treatment plants and a data analyser of what is there?

I know there are buffer zones. Could Mr. Callanan go into the platforms for grazing for me and storage and all of the different things we know about? A lot of them are achievable in my opinion. The only danger is that someone might be afraid to spend money in 2028 and not get the benefit later if it needs to be extended. Regarding access to information, according to the Department it is going to do the training. Is that going to be for private planners, Teagasc and the ACA?

I welcome Dr. O'Mara. The private planners were in front of this committee. They did not gripe but the facts are that Teagasc gets a big budget voted through here every year. Whatever information Teagasc compiles, if it is charging a farmer €250 per year the private planner is the same price. This is about an Irish jersey being put on in the line of water quality. That is my honest opinion. This is about farmers working together.

Mr. Callanan said there is a pack going out. Is that to all farmers or derogation farmers?

Turning back to Teagasc and the nutrient management plans, I see Teagasc's statement has the detail and it costs €5 or whatever. The argument is that is already paid for. The private planners do not have the backroom teams to keep sending to people whatever training the Department is doing or Teagasc is doing. They need to get one person who would specialise. This is for Ireland, in the line of water quality and new ways of doing things. Can there not be better collaboration worked between the Department, Teagasc and private planners so it is not them-and-us but us together wearing the Irish jersey because regardless of whether you are suckler, beef, dairy or whatever, this is about going forward and working together? The Department had the same problem when the texts came out for exporting slurry. I have talked to some of the Department's advisers. The planner for the recipient was left not knowing what was going on.

Now it has got to the stage, under the new course that is coming up in January, if planners sign something, or contact Johnny and ask if he was at slurry, they have to sign off that it was delivered. In fairness to the Teagasc planners or any kind of planner, they cannot be running out to every Johnny every day of the week to ask if he was spreading slurry or looking at the field. The Department, Teagasc and the private planners need to work together. If the money is there from the taxpayers and we have voted it through in the Dáil, this is for everyone, be it a farmer, Teagasc or a private planner. All the information should be given to each other because this is not about one being better than the other. Teagasc does a serious amount of research, which is great. The private planners will never do that-----

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy, you are out of time.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Give me a second. The private planners do not have the type of backup and expertise that the witnesses have, being blunt about it. That needs to be shared. We all need to work together. That is all I have to say.

Mr. Bill Callanan:

The Deputy has covered a wide range of topics. I will try to deal with them in order. First, in terms of the question of texts on slurry, I want to be clear that all private planners have access to our online system in terms of slurry movement for their clients. If farmers log in to Agfood they have access to their fertiliser database, slurry movements and nitrogen and phosphorous statements. Assigned advisors have access to the same information. They have access to all of their client's data in relation to slurry movements. There was a decision not to provide texts in relation to that. I do not have the figures for this year but last year there were something like 16,000 movements so the texts would be going like mad if we were to get into that. Planners have access to the necessary details to understand slurry movements that are going in to their farmer clients. That is important.

In terms of phosphorous showing up in terms of outflow, that is more appropriate for the EPA. We have to-----

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a lot of concern about it. The witnesses are in agriculture and are fighting the farmers' corner. They are trying to make water quality better. It is no good for the farmer to get the daylights kicked out of him because someone down the way is letting out sewage.

Mr. Bill Callanan:

I agree but if the Deputy looks at our efforts this year in terms of water quality, which have been ongoing for years, they have been taken to a new level in terms of engagement. A Cabinet subcommittee was set up and the Taoiseach chairs that. Uisce Éireann was before that subcommittee to highlight the work it is doing to make improvements. In terms of the licensing of plants, which is effectively what this question goes to, that is really a matter for the EPA.. It deals with licensing of nutrient removal in those plants.

In terms of the question on the platform and what is happening on the next nitrates action programme, all I can do is give the Deputy the context and tell him why we are trying to deal with this issue. Quite simply, the nitrates action programme is effectively a backstop for good practice on farms. The vast majority of farms will be ahead of that in terms of the practices they are already doing, so it works as a backstop. There was a concern in relation to a situation where, if the platform is growing in intensity and somebody is, for example, using a zero grazer in the autumn and bringing grass from outside blocks and using an umbilical in the spring time, that person is generating a load that is unsustainable but if he or she is returning the slurry to the out blocks, there is no issue. It ensures that a practice does not develop in relation to that. We are ahead of practice in relation to the regulation.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fair enough. Deputy Newsome Drennan is next.

Natasha Newsome Drennan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My first question is on Teagasc's online nutrient management planning system. A client can log in to that. Witnesses who appeared before us previously told us that slurry was being moved but it was not showing up on the system because the recipient had not accepted it. What work is being done on that to improve it? To have proper data, we need to have the information in good time so that people have the right amount and know if they can spread more on their own land and so forth. We need to be sure that slurry is shifted and recorded early enough.

Is there a cost to the private sector for the training that is provided? What is the story with that?

The water quality steering committee has been up and running since the end of 2024. What reports has it done already? Have they been made public? How much of an improvement will that steering committee make? The EPA is checking our water quality. How much work is being done with the authority so that we know where the water quality is bad, as do the farmers in those areas? How much of a benefit is the steering committee going to be? In terms of extra supports that would have to go in because of water quality concerns, where is that money going to come from? People are going to have to jump through extra hoops with the derogation so I would imagine that will all feed back in. Where is that extra money going to come from for those farmers who need extra supports?

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

In terms of the Deputy's last question on the extra supports, there are already a fairly good number of ASSAP advisors who specialise in providing water quality advice to farmers. There are over 50 of them. We have 20, there are 30 in the co-operatives and there are six employed by meat companies. They give free advice to farmers, not in every part of the country but in what are called priority areas for action. In terms of our cohort of advisors, we have over 250 advisors who would give advice to farmers as well. They are not specialists in water quality but they have a fair knowledge of it. Where a farmer would need advice, they certainly would be willing and able to give it.

In terms of the nutrient management planning online and the slurry recording, that actually does not come into our system. Those records of slurry movement go into a departmental system.

Dr. Stan Lalor:

I would just add some information about what we are doing with the EPA. It is worth highlighting that we have engaged very closely with the EPA, particularly around trying to bring to life the extensive monitoring data that the EPA has over time. One of the activities that we are working very hard on with the better farming for water campaign involves working with the EPA through its catchments.ie portal. The EPA has done a lot of development work on that in terms of making it more accessible. There is a lot more to do with it but it is certainly trying to better connect farmers with their local water quality data. It is a very good portal that is being developed and we are seeking all of the time to engage our own advisors with that, to train people up on what is in there and how to use it. We are trying to do exactly that to connect farmers with local water quality data. It lends itself to some of the things that Mr. Callanan mentioned in terms of the new nitrates programme. Specifically, in terms of the EPA, there is a lot of work going on.

Natasha Newsome Drennan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has that always been the case? Is EPA knowledge being transferred quickly enough? Are there any issues there?

Dr. Stan Lalor:

No, not specifically. The catchments.ie portal that I mentioned is relatively new. It is only in the last couple of years that the portal has been developed and in the last 18 months it has really progressed and a number of aspects have been added to it. There is a lot of data being brought forward through development on our nutrient planning system, nitrogen and phosphorous online. It also includes a lot of work that would have been collaboratively developed with the EPA around pollution impact potential, PIP, maps that identify areas that are vulnerable for nitrate loss or phosphate loss. More and more we are looking at trying to join the dots between these systems that are saying one thing and highlighting the same data all of the time. It is a constant conversation.

Natasha Newsome Drennan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are the witnesses having issues with Uisce Éireann? In our area there is waste and there are things that need to be upgraded. Does Uisce Éireann play a part in this?

Dr. Stan Lalor:

The closest we would get to that is that on catchment.ie there are main risks highlighted in different catchments. Many of those are highlighted as being agriculture and those are the ones we focus on. The ASSAP programme would focus on those as well. In others it would be identified that forestry, municipal or some other source is the primary risk. At that level, there is some overlap but direct engagement with Uisce Éireann would be limited enough. We are looking at the agricultural side in the main.

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

We have a good working relationship with the EPA on this. We find its catchment.ie maps very useful. It is very keen to know the measures being put in place by farmers in particular areas. When our advisers support farmers to adopt measures or put in improvements, the EPA likes to know that - not specifically that farmer A did it or farmer B did it, but so they can see-----

Natasha Newsome Drennan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If there are improvements they should be seen.

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

Exactly. It is so they can relate improvements in water quality to actions being taken at farm level. We are working to enable data on measures taken by farmers in the ASSAP programme to be provided to the EPA. It is not in place yet but we hope to get it in place.

Natasha Newsome Drennan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If something is put in place, you would expect there to be a better result. If there is not, it is like, “What’s going on now? Back to the drawing board.”

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

Hopefully, you start seeing improvements and that is great in encouraging others, who see the actions being taken are making a difference.

Natasha Newsome Drennan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

And it is down on paper that it has happened.

Mr. Bill Callanan:

On the first question regarding support, I ask people to refer to our water and agriculture collaborative approach. It is built around three pillars: appropriate regulation, appropriate incentives and supports for the likes of knowledge transfer.

In terms of the regulation, the nitrates action programme for post 1 January is in place. Similarly, in terms of the priority areas referred to be Teagasc, we have the ASSAP programme that supports a free advisory service to farmers. Building and reversing into that is the European Innovation Partnership, EIP, where €60 million is effectively made available for targeted measures consequent to the advice received on those farms. Some €50 million of that will be dedicated to farmer payments alone. We have something like 4,700 farmers already enrolled in that, doing the right action in the right place. I want to make sure everybody understands there is a coherent plan, including support for farmers.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That will come up again anyway.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their opening statements and work in this area. Many of the issues raised with us by the agricultural advisors were around data sharing and ensuring they got the information in time. With the new regime that will come into place regarding catchment areas, there possibly need to be new structures put in place to ensure everyone is working together and there is maximum co-operation and collaboration around that. I welcome that they have full access to all the data sheets and everything on the website. However, what if the information is not available on the website? There needs to be a re-examination to be absolutely certain we have the level of data available that people need to do the job. There will be an awful lot of additional work around this as we move forward.

I was looking at the catchments of concern. Seven of the 20 still require nitrogen reductions ranging from 2% to 38%, including the Barrow, the Slaney, the Bandon and the Blackwater. What will that mean for the farmers in those areas? Will it mean there has to be research or work done? Will there be a particular programme for those areas, further to what there is in other regions?

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

In terms of data and information sharing, we have no paywalls on our website. Anything that is there is free. We provide a fairly extensive programme of webinars and podcasts. Mr. Gibson runs a Friday morning one-hour webinar, “The Signpost Series”, on environmental issues. That is where we put out a lot of the information and new research we have around water quality or other environmental issues. Quite a few ACA consultants sign into that. That is all available free. We are committed to maximum collaboration with anybody, whether private consultants or people in co-ops or wherever.

We have to make ends meet as well. If we have additional activities to do, we have to get funding from somewhere. I suppose that goes without saying.

On the catchments of concern, some catchments are of more concern than others. We have, as part of the better farming for water campaign, identified eight big catchments going from the Boyne down - Slaney, Barrow, Nore, Suir, Blackwater, Bandon, Lee - as particular focuses. In addition to the ASSAP focus, there is a catchment-based approach in those. They are where a lot of intensive farming takes place and a nitrogen load reduction is required. Early next year we will launch catchment groups in each of those, bringing all the actors together in that catchment – industry, ourselves, other agencies and so on – to kind of take a specific approach to that particular catchment and do it on a catchment basis because there is no point doing it on a county basis. The Barrow flows through a lot of counties and so on. Working at the catchment level will be important.

Dr. Stan Lalor:

Mr. O’Mara touched on the technical information that is available. Teagasc publishes freely available information. It is accessible to private advisors and intended for their use as much as anybody’s.

Part of the Deputy’s question was on the availability of the data that is necessary for particular regulations and schemes. We work very closely with the ACA. All those issues are common to all advisors, whether private or in Teagasc. We have a good trilateral system in place with the Department to work through that. It is something we have developed well over the past three to five years, in terms of how we engage with the ACA, together with Teagasc and the Department, to tease out a lot of those issues. Issues come up all the time and they are constantly working through them. All three parties in that engage proactively across all the schemes and regulations and meet regularly to help the Department see what advisors need. We work through as many issues as we can and have a good working relationship around that.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With regard to those catchments of concern, what is-----

Mr. Bill Callanan:

I will deal with a couple of things there. We have 871 advisors that are FAS-approved. They are a mixture of Teagasc and private and ACA. We make no differentiation. An advisor has to be FAS-approved. That is it. Association and affiliation are irrelevant to us.

I fully agree and think it is a very good point on ensuring advisors have the data, but also that farmers have it. The water quality working group has met almost 30 times. The three objectives we set out at its instigation were, first, involving people in the development of the rules so they are committed to them and understand their rationale; second, educating farmers on water quality locally, so they can connect the rules to why we are doing this; third, looking at compliance – not rules based but with an understanding of why the rules are there, such as an advisor being able to explain what a buffer is and why it is in there or why we do not spread slurry at particular times of the year. It is to alleviate some of the frustrations of farmers around rules.

In terms of those catchments, they are a combination. There are regulatory things being put in place. I will give a simple example. There was a lot of angst about the reduction to 220 kg/ha but that is limiting in terms of nitrogen. Similarly, chemical fertiliser allowances have now been reduced three times. That is challenging for farmers but we need to educate them on better use of slurry and on use of clover and alternatives to maintain output with less chemical fertiliser.

I will ask my colleague Ms Evans to give a quick update on a group we have just set up working with advisers from all hues, including education, development and water. It has just been commenced.

Ms Odile Evans:

The Deputy asked about structures in ensuring advisers are up to date. That group is very new. The nitrates action programme and the implementing decision around the nitrates derogation are decisions that were only made in the last week. From next year, we need to make sure that all advisers are up to date on those matters. We roll out mandatory training to all farm advisory system, FAS-approved advisers on an annual basis. Next year, we will ensure that will include the nitrates action programme and the new derogation. It is our intention on the water quality training steering committee to make available advanced training on water quality for advisers, to make sure they can give the most up-to-date advice to farmers but also that they are aware of all the tools, supports and information that is there. We have the relevant expertise on that group, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, the local authority waters programme, LAWPRO, the Agricultural Consultants Association, ACA, and Teagasc. It is in its very early stages because it is a commitment under the sixth nitrates action programme, which has just been published.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will come back in there. Ms Evans listed all the different bodies there are in that steering group. There are no farmers' representatives on it.

Mr. Bill Callanan:

We have farmer representatives on the water quality working group, which has met 30 times, as I have said. This, however, is a separate group that is going to work with the advisory platform in regard to its knowledge as an interaction. I can assure the Deputy that we have all the farm-----

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes but will there be rules and regulations coming out of that?

Mr. Bill Callanan:

No.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is all right.

Mr. Bill Callanan:

This is only in regard to the support for the implementation of the action programme. Farmers have been consulted at all stages and involved-----

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Of course, and rightly so.

Mr. Bill Callanan:

-----and Mr. John Comer chairs that group.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are the people who are being affected. I call Deputy Lawless.

Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First, I welcome all the witnesses to the agriculture committee today. We had the ACA consultants and I think it is really important that we say from the outset that this should be a collaborative process. I hope that it is. That is really what we are trying to get at - to see how Teagasc, the Department and the ACA can all work together to improve the overall aim of environmental standards, compliance etc. I will start by asking Teagasc where its sees the role of private advisory services in the agricultural sector going forward.

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

I thank the Deputy. Is that in general or in regard to water quality?

Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In general. Where is the role for them? I will put this to the Department as well as Teagasc.

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

They have a massive role. As I said earlier, we have about 44,000 farmers who contract us for services. The ACA puts its figure somewhere around 55,000. It touches or reaches an awful lot of the farming community.

One thing that is a little bit different for us is that we give what we call a lot of public good or farm development advice as well. That is part of our remit as an organisation. Our advisers would always be conscious of giving advice around water quality. That is something that farmers probably would not pay for. That is why we call it "public good". That is the difference with the private advisers. How do they get paid for that?

Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. O'Mara. I want to go on to the nutrient management planning system. My understanding is this is a taxpayer-funded tool. It is designed to improve environmental standards, to enhance compliance and obviously meet the objective of a sustained derogation going forward, etc. ACA private consultants, despite advising over 60,000 farmers across the country, is precluded from using this tool unless it pays for it. Is that correct?

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

It is called nutrient management planning, NMP, Online. It is a tool we have developed over many years. We continually resource and update it and provide a helpdesk and so on with it. We make a really small charge for people to use it. As I outlined earlier, the charge works out for a small level of use at €5 per person. If you have a lot of users or are a consultant with a lot of clients, that charge can go down to as low as about €3 per client.

Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The fee that the ACA is paying collectively is over €300,000.

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

No, sorry.

Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How much is it?

Mr. Mark Gibson:

I will come in on that. Last year, the amount that was paid by private consultants or those using NMP Online outside of Teagasc was about €85,000 in total.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Going back a few years, there was €300,000 paid. Was there or was there not?

Mr. Mark Gibson:

In the early days, when nutrient management plans were associated with some of the agri-environment schemes-----

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A nutrient management plan lasts so long, is that not right?

Mr. Mark Gibson:

A nutrient management plan is typically five years or so. They have the plan-----

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They will hardly be paying the €300,000 every year but they did pay €300,000, so let us be straight about it.

Mr. Mark Gibson:

I will make one point. It is important to say that the system is a cofinanced model we operate. The income that comes from private consultants goes into the development of annual maintenance of the NMP Online.

Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The taxpayer is paying for this, or at least a good chunk of it. The point I am making to the witnesses is that this tool is of value to the environment, Ireland Inc., our derogation and the economy. It is of significant value. The reality is that farm advisers, because of the costs, are actually archiving this, which is disincentivising the nutrient management planning system. That is obviously having an impact and that is what I am trying to get across. Why is it the case that it is excluded from it, or it is not freely available, when it is a publicly funded and good resource for the entire country?

Mr. Mark Gibson:

This is a service we provide. It is part of the connected programme. It is a service we provide to all stakeholders within the agrifood sector or agribusiness. We provide training. This is what we regard as a service provided to external consultants, whether they are working in a co-op or as part of private consultancy. That contribution is made towards the system. We have a lot of systems in Teagasc and the cost of running those-----

Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I just want to make a point. The private consultants are archiving it - they are no longer using it - to save costs. The system is there. It is paid for by the taxpayer. The point I am making and want to get across is that I believe this should be available to private consultants for the public good. Would Mr. Gibson not agree with that?

Mr. Mark Gibson:

To echo what Deputy Fitzmaurice said at the outset, we have to put on the green jersey when it comes to water quality in this country. I totally agree but it means that we have this cost we must bear. Yes, in the initial development, taxpayers have contributed towards that.

Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The taxpayer has paid for it and putting on the green jersey means making it available to all farmers because it is that crucial. I will go on to slurry movements but I would ask Teagasc to consider that point with the Department.

In relation to slurry movements, what percentage of them are verified as of today?

Mr. Bill Callanan:

First, I want to give everybody an understanding of the legal requirements in nutrient management planning. We require derogation farmers to submit a nutrient management plan. It is updated, I think, every four years. However, we do not require them to use the Teagasc system alone. There are four providers out there who can provide nutrient management planning that are acceptable or have been approved by the Department. It is available to planners if they wish to develop and seek approval of that system from the Department equally. We make no differentiation as to where a nutrient management plan is procured or provided for. It can be provided by planners as well.

Second, in regard to the slurry side of it, I do not have figures regarding verification. What we are trying to achieve and working with farmers on is the introduction of a fertiliser database that has transformed our understanding of fertiliser use where it is happening. It also supports and assists farmers on their sustainability metrics. We are also building out slurry reporting and manure transfer reporting systems, which will include farm-to-farm but also sludges, etc., from Uisce Éireann. It will all be in one combined database to give a very good understanding of all the nutrients being applied within a catchment, for example, and assist farmers in their nutrient management planning and sustainability reporting, etc.

Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Callanan know what the verified figure is for slurry movement?

Mr. Bill Callanan:

I do not have it off the top of my head. We have introduced the four-day rule for the transfer of slurries. Let us call a spade a spade; we are working with farmers where they are delayed in reporting, etc., and then advising them on what their responsibilities are.

Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am conscious of time. The point I was getting at was-----

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Aird.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I start asking questions, I want to say one thing about an issue that was mentioned. As regards the finance going into Teagasc, that is taxpayers' money. That is its source of income. Teagasc carries out detailed studies. If I am a private consultant, Teagasc then charges me for that information, which I pass on to my clients. Does the money that is paid into Teagasc go back into its general fund? Is that correct?

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

We generate about a third of our operational budget. We get about two thirds of it in the grant from the Department of agriculture and we generate a third. If we knock off the €85,000 or whatever it is we get from the income we generate, where is that going to come from?

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It goes back into the system. Teagasc charges private consultants. Let us call it €100. They pay the €100 and that €100 goes back in for the benefit of every farmer.

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

Yes, it goes towards running our operation and is for the benefit of everybody.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is grand. I just wanted to check. Are current supports and resources enough for private advisers to give farmers effective guidance on nitrates and water quality?

Mr. Bill Callanan:

I want to be clear that the provision of support by an advisor is based on knowledge and data, as Deputy Kenny highlighted. We aspire to make as much data as possible available to facilitate how they do that. That includes the land declared and the animal numbers. If you look at the development of our processes such as AgNav, we are trying to populate them with as much information to allow advisers to be as effective as possible.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the information available to Teagasc available through the Department to private advisers doing the same work?

Mr. Bill Callanan:

The farmer is the priority. The farmer has to have access. It is their information and they should have access. It is irrelevant whether the adviser works privately or for Teagasc. They get access to the information if they are associated with the herd number. They get access to all of it, whether it is the livestock numbers, fertiliser data or slurry movements, whether the movements are unaccepted or approved.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is all right.

Mr. Bill Callanan:

They have access to it all.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They know everything about me, so. What training is in place to ensure advisers have up-to-date knowledge and the tools for environmental compliance?

Mr. Bill Callanan:

Ms Evans described our plan for engaging with advisers around what data allows them to best do their jobs.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How are the Department and Teagasc working with private advisers to ensure consistent advice to address local farm needs?

Mr. Bill Callanan:

If you want to be an adviser, you have to FAS approved. That requires approval by the Department of agriculture, which includes, as Ms Evans identified, mandatory training on ongoing basis. That is given for free by the Department. Once you are on that list, you are an accredited adviser for the provision of advice to farmers.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Provided the boxes are ticked, is the Department then happy with everything an adviser says?

Mr. Bill Callanan:

That is correct.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If Teagasc is happy, that is all that matters. What are the main obstacles private advisers face in delivering effective nitrates and water quality advice? How can these obstacles be overcome?

Mr. Bill Callanan:

The group that Ms Evans chairs engages with the EPA, advisers and Teagasc. Part of our work is to try to ensure everyone is joined up in terms of that knowledge so that there is an awareness of why the rules are place and what the rationale behind them is. It is not just about rules but about informing people as to the benefits that arise from them. It is also about how we develop local knowledge about water quality so that farmers are aware of how their actions are directly connected to local water quality. It is about creating a better understanding. It is about improving water quality as opposed to compliance.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know this from my time as a county councillor. When the county council goes into yards and tests water and so on, is there a crossover with the Department? Will there be a crossover? Should the Department sit down with the county councils and say that if it is carrying out a test, the councils do not have to. Is there going to be joined-up thinking on this?

Mr. Bill Callanan:

There is working group that works between the local authorities and the Department to avoid the duplication of inspections, if that is the Deputy's concern, such that a farmer is not going to be visited by the council and then by a representative from the Department.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We know that if the council finds out something, the first port of call is to tell the Department so that the farmer will get a cut in his single farm payment. Unfortunately, that is the way it works, and then there are tears and the farmer gets on to me as the local public representative. That is the reality of it. That is what frustrates farmers every day. In fairness to them, most farmers in the country are nearly living on their nerves, between Bord Bia and everything else. I spent a whole Sunday washing the whole place down for Bord Bia to make sure it was okay.

I often talk about the case of what happened when I was inspected. I am going to repeat myself again. My dog was standing beside me and the inspector said that he, the dog, was not supposed in the parlour. I replied that she was a she and asked him to tell her. I said that she would not listen to me because she had spent all her life following me around. I am just making a point. That is what happens. To be fair, we have to work together on this. We need to walk forward together. I do not want people living on tenterhooks again. That is all I am saying.

Mr. Callanan know this. I do not have to tell him. What does a farmer dread most? It is the person with the green coat with the harp on it coming in. It puts the farmer's heart in his mouth. The witnesses should hear some of the stories I have heard from farmers whose herds have tested positive for TB. God help them, they are heart-wrenching. My herd will be tested and I could be one of them myself. All I ask is that we have joined-up thinking and that we all collaborate to make this as easy as we can to get the results we all want. Is that fair enough?

I have one more question. How is the effectiveness of the advice on water quality and regulatory compliance given by private advisory services being measured? Does the Department have any plans for improvements?

Mr. Bill Callanan:

In terms of compliance, I chaired the agricultural water quality working group when it was established and John Comer chairs it now. We put in an independent chair. This was an issue that came up. We see our role as supporting and enabling people to ensure compliance, but we also regulate and that includes inspections of farms. I fully accept the Deputy's rationale that there is a concern at farm level about inspections, whether they are carried out by the Department or a council, etc. However, I want to be clear that all of the participants in the likes of the working group, and in particular farmers who are impacted by the derogation and want to see it continued longer term, have fully endorsed the need for a robust compliance system to ensure that we are transparent about what we are asking of farmers, that we assist them in their understanding of those rules and that compliance is part of this process.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are all farms as rigorously tested?

Mr. Bill Callanan:

Every farm is tested.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about Bord Bia?

Mr. Bill Callanan:

We apply the rules as per the regulations. That is it.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about the farmers who are not in derogation?

Mr. Bill Callanan:

That does not matter. A derogation has a 10% inspection rate, but all farmers have an inspection rate. It is applied the same way for all farmers. There are additional asks of derogation farms and there is a higher inspection rate-----

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what I mean.

Mr. Bill Callanan:

-----but the standard and the questions asked of a derogation or non-derogation farmer are the same.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How high are the inspection rates?

Mr. Bill Callanan:

They are 10% for farmers in derogation.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that 10% more?

Mr. Bill Callanan:

Ten per cent of derogation farmers are inspected.

Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming in and for their opening statements. There is great work being done and it is important that we all work together for the farming community. I am not going to go back over what other speakers have said. We heard from the private agricultural advisers on this topic in October and we are now hearing from the Department and Teagasc today. There would have been far more value for us to hear both sides of this issue at the same time. That would have given us better context.

The private advisers told us that they have been excluded from the agricultural sustainability support and advisory programme and from participation in the water European Innovation Partnership, EIP.

The opportunity lost because of that exclusion was outlined and has been outlined here today. Is there a plan to include them in these programmes in future?

Dr. Stan Lalor:

Yes, that is true. The water EIP was born out of ASSAP in terms of how it was rolled out. The ASSAP programme began in 2018. Teagasc was funded to provide advisers into that programme. The dairy co-ops at the time came forward and they provided funding into that programme. The amalgamation of advisers came through, which meant that advisers were made available from Teagasc, and the co-ops came together and offered benefit-in-kind funding to staff who worked as ASSAP advisers as well. The programme developed on the basis that there was a collaboration based on two available funding sources, which were Teagasc and the dairy co-ops. That has expanded since and, as the director outlined, we have over 50 advisers out in the field now. The number of Teagasc advisers has not increased - it remains at 20 - but the dairy processing co-ops and some new meat processors are providing advisers to that programme too, so that is growing over time.

There is a commercial reality to that programme, which is where the funding comes from for people who can invest in it. The co-ops and the meat processors have come to the table and offered up staff to be able to help with that. The water EIP was then born out of that. One of the justifications for it was that when we looked at the ASSAP programme after a number of years, the initial review after the first three or four years of the programme identified that there had been fantastic engagement at farm level for the priority areas for action, PAAs, where the ASSAP programme was working, but an additional gap was identified, which was what the follow-up could be. The farmers had got very good engagement with an adviser and had engaged very well with the advice that was given, but obviously when you are going about doing things, that comes at a cost. The water EIP came in response to that because it was clearly identified that there was a need to close the gap in what could be done to support farmers with the additional measures to do that. That is where the water EIP came from, and going through the EIP opportunities with farmers was an obvious add-on for the people already working with those farmers in ASSAP. That is how these elements went hand in glove.

There are a lot of measures that farmers can be supported on within the water EIP. A relatively small number within the EIP, but some nonetheless, such as developing a nutrient management plan and so on, can be funded. A farmer can receive financial support to do that. The farmer can then do whatever they like with that. If they want to engage a private adviser with the funding they have, that is one way of doing it. That is just the background of ASSAP, the water EIP and where that came about.

The reality in all of this, and this covers a lot of the questions coming up, is that when we think about trying to harness - let us be honest, it is about harnessing the opportunity with private advisers - there is a commercial reality to their work in terms of the businesses they run. Our director has mentioned the fact that a big part of our advisory remit is to do public good work. It is good for the sector to get knowledge transfer and advisory work going on, but it is not something for which there is necessarily a commercial return for doing. There is a commercial return for doing scheme work for farmers. They understand there is a particular benefit from a particular scheme application and they pay an adviser to do it. We charge for that in the same way as private advisers. There are some aspects of technical advice that can attract a commercial fee and that is good business for private advisers, but the reality is that not all of that can be that way.

We make as much information as possible available. There is no secrecy about the research we do in Teagasc. We are very clear and transparent in terms of publication. It is available to everyone. We do not charge for events or anything like that. They are open to everyone. We try to work as much as possible, whether with people with dairy co-ops, people in the agri-supply trade or private advisers, to engage as many people as we can through whatever mechanism is appropriate to get them upskilled, tooled up and to be in touch with the information and be on message as much as possible. Every one of those is coming from their own business in relation to how they can do that. Private advisers are no different; we just need to recognise the difference. Mr. Gibson is very involved with the agricultural and knowledge innovation system, AKIS. It is something the Department has put a lot of emphasis on. It is coming from European regulations. We are trying to up our game in recognising the value that is there across the entirety of the system that is working with farmers in terms of knowledge transfer and information, and that is something we are consistently very active about doing.

In terms of how it is all paid for with charges for this or that, we have a commercial reality, as the director said, in making our budget balance. We are dependent on our own-generated income, whether that is NMP Online or anything else. We do charge private advisers for access to NMP Online. We have subscription charges for the ConnectEd programme and there is a value added for that, which we try to profess. Likewise, when a Teagasc adviser is doing a nutrient management plan for a farmer using the same tool, the farmer pays for that because that is the commercial reality we have to reflect. The NMP Online system was developed with public funds. We saw a very clear need to develop that system because we felt we needed a robust system in Teagasc. We are happy to share it with private advisers. We developed it at the time in conjunction with private advisers in terms of how they would be able to access it and so on. The development cost of that has been invested. The reality is that there is an ongoing maintenance cost for the service desk and updating the software platform it is built on when new regulations come along. We are balancing this cost within the overall budget and that is the reality of the world we are in.

Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Dr. Lalor outlined the situation very well there. From what I am hearing, though, the plans are not to include the advisers in the programme going forward and to leave it the way it is. Is that right?

Dr. Stan Lalor:

At the moment, in 2026, the charging structure for ConnectEd will be there. Mr. Gibson manages that business and the invoices are being processed as we speak.

Mr. Mark Gibson:

I think the question relates to ASSAP.

Dr. Stan Lalor:

I am sorry. ASSAP is continuing as it is.

Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have one other quick question. Are there any concerns about water discharging from wastewater treatment plants? Could it be causing problems and could farmers be blamed in the wrong in some situations?

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

There is no doubt some of the wastewater treatment plants around the country are problematic and need to be improved over the coming years. It is Uisce Éireann's remit to do that and the EPA monitors those plants. It would not be anything we have a role in monitoring. We would be aware, no more than anyone else, that it is an issue and it needs to be addressed before we are going to be fully able to tackle water quality.

Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are concerns regarding issues going on that could be causing issues with water quality.

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Brady.

Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach.

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry, Senator, just one second. Mr. Callanan wishes to come in.

Mr. Bill Callanan:

In terms of the EIP, that was an open tender call. We are bound by the contracts awarded in that structure. It was an open call, available to anybody to compete in, and it was an award under a contract. We do have to be mindful of that going forward.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is that? I do not understand what Mr. Callinan said. He will have to explain it better for me.

Mr. Bill Callanan:

In simple terms, we had a certain amount of money that we wanted to make available to farmers for actions and we issued an open call in terms of who wanted to implement that programme.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They did not come up, though. Why were they not at the meetings the Department is after having? Mr. Callanan listed out to us the local-----

Mr. Bill Callanan:

No, it was available to everybody to compete for that call. That is what I am saying. It was an open call.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but what we are asking, and we are all asking this, is that question.

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I need to bring in Senator Brady.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are all asking that question.

Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I just ask one question? Regarding the nutrient management plan, I appreciate what is being said concerning Teagasc having commercial objectives and so on, but who paid for it? If it was the taxpayer and if it is a public good, which it is, should it not be shared so that all farmers have the benefit? It is currently the case that not all private advisers are using it because of the cost. This point has not really been addressed. I appreciate the point around commercial activity, and that Teagasc has objectives and budgets, which is right and proper. My understanding, however, is that it was paid for by the taxpayer and it is a public good service. Can that question be answered please?

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I need to move to Senator Brady.

Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The question can be answered. I do not mind. Dr. Lalor can answer if he wants to.

Dr. Stan Lalor:

I am happy to take it. The development of NMP Online came out of the Teagasc budget. That is what paid for it. It was a decision by Teagasc to invest in this system and develop it, and that development started in 2013. It has been there and developed ever since. On day one, when we were developing this system, we spoke to the private consultants about what their use of the system could be and to be able to have the system they could interact with. I said all this earlier. It is more a budgetary reality than a commercial reality.

When we do a nutrient management plan for a farmer, we charge the farmer for it.

We charge a farmer for this because we have to generate income. This is not full cost recovery because that is not what our advisory service is based on. We do not get full cost recovery from the fees we charge clients for the work we do, including nutrient management planning and most other services. Likewise, the charge we have regarding private consultants is nowhere near cost recovery for their usage of the system. We estimate that the maintenance costs we have for NMP Online are in the region of €20 per plan in the system. As the director outlined, we charge somewhere between €2 and €5, based on the ConnectED contract for NMP Online. It is nowhere near cost recovery. It is a contribution to the system.

As Mr. Callanan has mentioned, there is choice in the market around these systems. We developed it and it was the Teagasc budget that developed it. The Teagasc budget is a combination of own generated income and State funding. There was not a specific grant from the Department to develop this. It was part of the programme of activities agreed with the Department but it was not a specific ring-fenced pot of money. It was part of the Teagasc budget. There is a charge on the private consultants, which is not full cost recovery but a contribution to the ongoing maintenance of the system. This is similar to an awful lot of the services and charges we have across the board for a lot of things. This is the reality of it. This is the best I can answer.

Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was said that an advisory group was set up and the EPA and other groups were mentioned regarding water quality. There was no mention of Irish Water in this group. Has it been brought in for its knowledge and service and with regard to upgrades and where it goes? Has the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority been brought in for its expertise regarding our coastline as advisers on the group?

Mr. Bill Callanan:

I will take this at an overview level. The reality is that our water quality working group works in the sector to see what the sector can contribute to the whole-of-government approach to improving water. Irish Water participated through presentations to the Cabinet subcommittee. This is the form of its engagement, which is at a higher level and is cross-departmental and cross-government with regard to improving water quality. The overall remit in terms of water quality rests with the Department of housing. We work in close collaboration on the nitrates action programme and we as a Department manage the derogation, including the request for its continuance. The Department of housing has overall responsibility, and it engages with Irish Water, on the river basin management plan. This is the national framework to improve water quality and it includes Uisce Éireann. We as a Department have responsibility only in engaging with the agricultural sector and, as I said, the derogation.

Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is correct and I get that. We have done tests on water, and catchment areas, shallows and flood areas have been mentioned. There is scientific evidence, I am sure, from downstream of treatment plants and upstream from them. Does the Department have this information?

Mr. Bill Callanan:

The EPA has done estimates. The EPA is monitoring some of these plants in terms of licensing. It is a question better placed to the agency with regard to the requirements. It has also included them in the calculations of pressures on catchment levels where they are attributable, whether forestry, agriculture or wastewater treatment. All this work has been done.

Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The data is there from the EPA and the Department and it is freely available. When it comes to inspectors, local authorities are doing inspections on farms. Is this correct?

Mr. Bill Callanan:

Correct.

Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is reported back to the Department.

Mr. Bill Callanan:

No, the process is that the regulation for the nitrates action programme is signed by the Minister for housing. He has responsibility for the overall implementation and control of the regulation. We as a Department do farm inspections under basic payment and derogation controls. We feed into the control programme, which is part of compliance with the nitrates action programme rather than the other way around.

Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that but the local authority does not report back to the Department of housing; it reports to the Department of agriculture.

Mr. Bill Callanan:

No, that is not correct. It reports on the overall control and implementation of the regulation, which is theirs. That is the nitrates action programme. The sixth nitrates action programme was signed on Monday by the Minister, Deputy Browne. We contribute. Regarding somebody in receipt of a payment under basic payment or ACRES, there is cross-reporting on non-compliance that would result in a penalty through our inspections, as the same penalties would apply under cross-reporting.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Department is told straight away.

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hang on; let Senator Brady have an opportunity.

Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have the four-day rule and the text message relating to slurry exports. The farmer gets a text message. How come my adviser cannot get a text message?

Mr. Bill Callanan:

I have explained this in reply to Deputy Fitzmaurice. The data I have is from a year ago. Approximately 16,000 slurry movements are reported to the Department every year. The text message alert would result in pinging advisers incessantly. The advisers have access on their system to all of the records and reports for their individual claimants and they can analyse this any way they want. They can do reports on how many have received slurry that was not notified. All of the advisers have access to this data exactly as is. This was seen as a better way than a text that would end up pinging their phones every five minutes.

Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A text goes to the farmer.

Mr. Bill Callanan:

The farmer is only dealing with one farm whereas an adviser could have 400 clients.

Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is correct. We still have to ring the advisers. We are paying them to do the slurry movements. We have to ring them to say we have got a text message that a slurry movement needs to be done. Why do we not have a system in this day and age? We are talking about a weekly or monthly basis. Why is the four-day rule not spread over a longer period? Why is it four days? Why is the information not available?

Mr. Bill Callanan:

Farmers can record it and they do not have to ring their advisers.

Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know that.

Mr. Bill Callanan:

The system is built to facilitate a farmer not having to engage. We are making it is as easy as possible for farmers to report. This is the first port of call. With regard to the four days, let us call a spade a spade. We have been trying to better manage and control farm to farm slurry movements. If I go back some time, and this is quite some time ago and I have been involved in a long time in nitrates, we had a situation where we gave N and P statements, which are nitrogen and phosphorus statements, at the end of the year and people could put in their records until the end of January. I make no bones about it. We had a situation where somebody was calculating exactly how much slurry should have been moved and then reporting it to us to generate compliance. Farmers were coming out with 169 kg N/ha or whatever. We have removed all of this. This resulted in a requirement in advance of N and P statements that a farmer has to genuinely report on what slurry movements have happened. The four-day rule is a further iteration of this.

We are analysing as well where slurry movements are happening. We assume that some slurry movements are happening from farm to farm but we have been clear with advisers that we cannot have a situation where incredible distances are being suggested for slurry movements. That has happened, and I assure the Senator that it has happened. I want to be clear that we have a responsibility to farmers to assist and enable but also to regulate and ensure we have the long-term interests of all farmers in place in terms of securing a continuation of the derogation and delivering on water quality. I make no apologies. This is an issue we had to get control of to ensure farm-to-farm movements are genuinely happening and can be controlled. The four-day rule allows evidence to be there.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Calllanan cannot make statements like that.

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Farmers-----

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Aird, please. We have gone over time on this. A number of questions remain unanswered.

Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I just want to clarify one question.

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please.

Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We spoke about-----

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please, Senator. A number of questions remain unanswered.

Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Now we are-----

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please, Senator, stop. I will suspend if Senator Brady persists. A number of questions remain unanswered from Deputies Lawless and Fitzmaurice, Senator Brady and possibly from others.

I ask witnesses to take the opportunity to send the us any unanswered questions for the benefit of the committee. I need to bring the meeting to a conclusion. I thank all members and witnesses for taking part and for the wide-ranging conversation.