Farming organisations are opposing new EU restrictions which could limit farmland use to one cow per acre, writes Seán MacConnell, Agriculture Correspondent.
Last month, a Catholic archbishop and one of the country's most senior judges both highlighted the problem of clean water, an issue that our forebears would seldom even have thought about.
Archbishop Dermot Clifford of Cashel and Emly, devoted most of his Lenten Pastoral to the subject in this, the UN Year of Fresh Water. Dr Clifford said that even our holy wells were being contaminated, and while agriculture was the main source of pollution, farmers would have to be helped to prevent pollution.
Meanwhile, at the other end of the State, Judge Cormac Dunne was dealing with the case of "a high profile" farmer who pleaded guilty to 32 charges of polluting a local river with farm effluent in Co Monaghan, between September 2001 and February 2002.
The defendant's lawyer said that he was a dairy farmer and had no intention of causing any pollution. He had spent over €40,000 on measures to curb seepage from the farm and had not deliberately set out to cause pollution.
Judge Dunne said he accepted there was always a great difficulty between balancing the practice of farming and the environment. It was a difficult situation in which the defendant had found himself.
The farmer, who had a previous conviction for causing pollution, was fined €500 and ordered to pay €2,958 expenses, and was stated to have caused gross pollution to the water by spreading slurry on lands during November 2001, an unsuitable time of the year because high rainfall had led to seepage, and the land could not absorb the fertiliser.
Irish society may very well be unable to address the problem which has arisen because of the over-use of fertiliser by farmers, who have gained enormous financial benefits from the practice. But the EU can, and has already demanded that Ireland improve its water quality quickly by implementing what is known as the Nitrates Directive.
Ireland is the last of the 15 member states to do so, probably because our largest indigenous industry produces so much organic fertiliser from its seven million cattle, five million sheep, 1.7 million pigs and 14 million chickens.
On top of that, the latest figures show that farmers also spread an astonishing 1.5 million tonnes of non-organic fertiliser, in the form of nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium, in 2001.
The farm organisations are fighting the implementation of the Nitrates Directive which seeks to limit nitrogen use in Nitrate Vulnerable Zones to 170k of nitrogen per hectare per annum.
They argue that implementing the levels demanded by Brussels would render Irish farms unviable and they could not compete with other EU producers.
The farm organisations also point out that Irish water quality is improving and that, as a result of environmental programmes, the usage of fertiliser is already falling.
In the recent discussions to find a new partnership agreement with the farmers, the Government said it would designate the entire country as a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone where a general limit of 210k nitrogen per hectare would operate.
"While the limits set must reflect the terms of the Directive, the Government will utilise its derogation provisions to seek approval of a derogation for nitrogen limits of up to 250k of nitrogen per hectare per annum to be allowable on a farm-by-farm basis," said a document drawn up for the talks.
But Irish agriculture journalists visiting Brussels earlier this month were left in no doubt that the Commission is determined to curb nitrogen and phosphate use here. Levels above 210k of nitrogen per hectare would not be acceptable to the Commission and it would look for levels of 170k a hectare.
Senior officials also told journalists that in terms of phosphate use, half of the State's farmland did not require any more phosphate for at least another 10 years. It was made clear that the EU Nitrates Directive was drawn up in 1991 and Ireland has been dragging its feet in implementing it. Apart from the major environmental concerns, there were also commercial advantages for Irish farmers in relation to their European counterparts.
Teagasc, the agriculture and food development authority, has produced a report on the impact of implementing tighter controls on farm production which would lead to a cap on stocking rates.
Full implementation of the directive would mean that farmers would be allowed keep an average of only 2.5 cows to the hectare, that is, one cow to the acre. However, in the report, Owen Carton, Teagasc, Johnstown Castle and Sean Regan, the chief environmental adviser at Teagasc, found most of the farmers' concerns about the curbs were unfounded. "For the majority of Irish farmers who observe good farming practice or operate within the Rural Environment Protection Scheme guidelines, the impact on farm practice will be negligible," they concluded.
If farmers were allowed operate at a 210k organic nitrogen limit, Teagasc estimated that only 4,000 to 5,000 farmers would be hit by the stocking rates requirement. It said these highly stocked grassland farmers would have to either reduce their stocking rates or export manure/slurry to other farms with lower stocking rates. The Government is currently drawing up a Nitrates Action Programme, which is expected to be ready in June.
"Obviously, the 170k organic nitrogen limit (a stocking rate of two cows or their equivalent) for areas designated as Nitrate Vulnerable Zones, which is provided for in the EU directive, would have a significantly greater impact on both intensive grassland farmers and the pig, poultry and mushroom sectors," reported Teagasc.
"There are some concerns that farmers will be required to have six months' slurry storage. The requirements for slurry storage in the Action Programme will be based on soil type, climatic and farming system considerations," said the report.
"It would, therefore, vary across the country with lower requirements in the south of the country compared with northern parts. This is already acknowledged in the 1996 Code of Good Agricultural Practice. Therefore, in most grassland farming circumstances the slurry storage requirements will reflect those required by Good Farming Practice.
"However, the biggest challenge could be for pig, poultry and mushroom farmers who require other farmer's land for spreading their slurry or compost. The stocking rate limit would reduce the potential land base available to them.
"Their situation is exacerbated by existing controls on spread lands including limits on soil test phosphorus levels. This will have to be addressed within the Action Programme as there is no viable alternative manure management option to land spreading," the Teagasc report concluded.