Should we prepare for the end of the Nitrates derogation?
The EU Nitrates Directive is about protecting water quality
The Nitrates Directive of 1991 (yes, that long ago!) sets out as its objective “to protect water quality across Europe by preventing nitrates from agricultural sources that pollute ground and surface waters and by promoting the use of good farming practices”.
Under the Directive, EU Member States are required to develop national nitrates action plans which set out the rules for management, storage and application of organic livestock manures and other chemical fertilisers. Each national plan must include a limit on the amount of livestock manure applied to the land each year, set out periods when land spreading is prohibited due to the risk of nutrient loss, and set out minimum on-farm storage capacity levels for livestock manure.
The general EU limit on annual livestock manure spreading is calculated at 170 kgs of nitrate equivalent per hectare (N/ha) based on a nominal excretion rate per livestock unit. Since 2006 Ireland has been able to negotiate a derogation allowing the farmers who meet specified additional environmental restrictions and requirements to intensify their stocking rate up to 250kgs N/ha. We currently have around 7000 farmers in derogation, most of them dairy farmers.
National nitrate action plans must be reviewed and re-presented to the EU Commission every four years. The derogation can only be maintained if it is shown that the objectives of the Directive were not negatively impacted. Hence, if water quality is disimproving, hanging on to the derogation becomes trickier, and the conditions imposed by the EU Commission for renewal become more rigorous.
Ireland is part of very small club. The Netherlands, Belgian Flanders and Denmark also obtained derogations that remain valid. The current Dutch provisions are a clear transition out of derogation by 2025, with no prospect of renewal. Northern Ireland’s derogation came to an end at the end of 2022.
With the end of milk quotas, Irish dairy farmers have been encouraged to capitalise on their natural advantage to expand and intensify their farming activity. In doing so, many have effectively become economically dependent on this derogation to sustain their stocking density and output levels and service their financial commitments. Ireland’s derogation was renewed in 2022 and is valid for three more years after that – but with a mid-term review scheduled for this year.
So, how secure is the Irish derogation, even allowing for much stricter further environmental conditionality? And without wishing it, would it be wise to start planning for its end?
Farmers in derogation do the most to reduce their environmental impact
By law, to qualify for and maintain their N derogation status, farmers have to undertake far more environmental protection actions than non-derogation farmers.
This currently includes following a liming programme, using low emission slurry spreading (LESS) methods for all their slurry, reducing the level of crude protein in their rations, attending environmental courses, producing both a soil nutrient and a grassland management plan, include clover in their pasture, and tighter biosecurity measures.
From this year, additional measures will be demanded from derogation farmers, with the introduction of “banding” (see below). From 2024, the limit will drop from 250 kgs/ha to 220 kgs/ha for areas where water bodies are classed as polluted or at risk of pollution.
The link between derogation farming and water quality
The correlation between stocking density and poor water quality is often shown by the geographical coincidence between polluted river basins and areas of densest cattle (dairy cows) population, as can be seen from the maps below. The regions where the poorest nitrate quality is registered in river catchments are also the regions which have the most larger dairy herds.
However, some experts in the sector have questioned just how much of this is a cause and effect relationship with derogation. There seems to be little research to directly correlate poorer water quality in an area with a greater prevalence of derogation farmers. It is counter intuitive to think that the farmers who are subject to significantly more stringent obligations on farming practices to reduce nutrient loss and run off from their farms would cause more pollution than those that aren’t.
On the other hand, whether we like it or not, the EPA reports on water quality for the relevant regions are what will determine the future direction for the N derogation.
ASSAP programme is a game changer
The Agricultural Sustainability Support and Advisory Programme (ASSAP), a joint initiative from the dairy industry, government and local authorities, supported by Teagasc, was a game changer. From a focus on punitive enforcement by local authorities, it has moved to a free and confidential advisory service in 190 priority zones (see map). This helps farmers engage to improve water quality by identifying problems and solutions adapted to the specific realities of their own farms.
ASSAP have carried out over 3,000 farm sustainability assessments, with over 750 follow up farm visits. On average, five issues are identified per farm. They include phosphorus and sediment loss to waters by surface run-off; timing, rate and locations of fertiliser applications; livestock access to watercourses and adherence to riparian buffer zones on farms. 96% of farmers approached avail voluntarily of the advisory service. The visits aim to identify “the right measure in the right place”, and farmer participants have taken on board 93% of all recommendations made. Over 60% of farmers have started to carry out or completed the recommended measures.
It is arguable this carrot scheme achieved more than the standard stick approach it replaced in the 190 priority zones. Perhaps one of its greatest achievements was the greater awareness and understanding it has fostered among farmers of how nutrients can leach off their land, how this impacts water courses, and how it can be remedied, often simply and at relatively low cost. The fact that it focuses on finding solutions that are adapted to a farmer’s own fields, paddocks, roadways, ditches and farmyard is its strength.
It was good to hear late last year that a new European Innovation Partnership (EIP) scheme for water quality will provide €60m from CAP for the next five years to support on-farm remedial actions.
Such approaches based on voluntary engagement and farm-specific advice, with additional financial support to implement the measures identified, should be generalised to up our game on water quality improvements. Indeed, the principle could be extended to other sustainability measures from GHG emission reductions to biodiversity protection.
Nitrates plan reviews v water quality reports
It seems to me that, when improvements in water quality are relatively slow, it would make sense to slow the frequency of reviews of the N action plans and regulations, and up the assessment of their results. The goalposts have moved dramatically for farmers twice in the last two years, and they will move again in 2024.
This is not to deny the urgency of the environmental crisis. Rather, we need to be fairer to farmers who have done much to adapt their farming practices and reduce nutrient loss.
The latest review of water quality by the EPA was published late last year and was based on data for the 2016-2021 period. Yet, this is what will be informing future measures. There appears to be a permanent two-year lag in the water quality measurement v. the additional obligations imposed on farmers.
In a results-based approach, stock would be taken of whether desired improvements have been achieved because of one set of actions before imposing additional obligations. This would be more likely bought into by farmers, as a desirable science-based underpinning to a policy area heavily influenced by ideology at EU as well as national level.
Land market implications
One of the new measures which will apply this year arising from the latest N regulations review is “banding”. This seeks to replace a notional excretion rate of 89kgs/N/ha which had applied to every Irish dairy cow thus far, with a calculation more closely matching the reality of their milk yields. For derogation farmers with high yielding cows, this will amount to a stock increase which could tip them over the 250kg/N/ha limit. For some non-derogation farmers whose N excretion load has to date been calculated at less than 170kgs/ha, it could mean rising above that figure and into derogation territory unexpectedly.
Reducing the stocking calculation can be done by reducing cow numbers, or by diluting the same number of cows over more hectares. Farmers can also export more slurry towards tillage or lower stocked livestock farms – subject to rigorous conditions.
The chase for “diluting” land has already contributed to an increase in demand for leased land, with matching price inflation, and ill-tempered competition between dairy farmers and with tillage and beef farmers.
This is a perverse, unnecessarily costly impact facilitated by recent strong profitability in dairying, but it is hardly economically sustainable for the full term of a lease. Also, while it may tick the box for the individual farmer, it is unlikely to make much positive environmental impact.
An exemption that cannot be taken for granted
By definition, a derogation is an exemption from the law. This does not suggest permanence, especially when the policy direction at EU level is clearly towards tightening its conditions.
Ireland’s dairy production is currently dependent on the derogation being maintained – but how prudent and sustainable is this, long term, from a farm economic, never mind environmental point of view?
Recent sky-high milk prices have already started to turn, and while they will most likely remain at higher levels than the average of recent years, they are no basis for sensible financial planning. Leasing additional land without agronomic need at high cost just builds economic vulnerabilities into a sector which should prioritise economic strength as an integral part of its overall sustainability. It also has serious implications for the availability and affordability of land to arable farmers to deliver on our policy of increasing tillage production, or for tree planting, or to facilitate more organic farming, or greater “space for nature” in farmland.
Nitrates derogation: hope for the best, but prepare for the worst?
Cast your mind back to the Brexit negotiations. In the period between 2016 and 2020, our government, state agencies, food companies and farmers, while negotiating and lobbying hard for the least bad outcome, worked just as hard to adapt and reduce our reliance on the UK market in case of a hard Brexit.
And it worked: we now have a reasonable trade deal which allows us to continue to sell to this valuable, historical market, and now (hopefully) some of the final Northern Ireland issues resolved thanks to the Windsor Agreement. Furthermore, since the 2016 referendum, we have managed to reduce our dependence on the UK from 37% to 32% of our food exports, while growing the total value of our exports by 50% from €11.15 billion to €16.7 billion in 2022.
Just like Brexit was going to “get done”, so pressures at EU and national level to screw down derogation conditions tighter in a bid to reduce nutrient loss to water will continue inexorably.
This may seem anathema to some. But should we adopt the same approach we used for Brexit to the Nitrates derogation? That is, lobby hard for the most favourable outcome to future derogation reviews, while working just as hard to secure the food production capacity, economic as well as environmental sustainability of highly stocked Irish farmers in preparation for its end?
Padraig Walshe RIP
Padraig left us well before his time last month. He was a powerful advocate for Irish agriculture and inspired many to do better. His many achievements and contributions to the sector have been documented in the last few weeks. The sheer number of people who attended his wake and funeral, and the messages of sympathy and sadness from all over the world speak of how loved and respected he was.
For me, he was a dear friend, a mentor, someone I could bounce ideas off any time, any day, on the phone or over a cup of coffee. He was a pleasure to work with in IFA, and inspired me to undertake a Nuffield Scholarship. I owe him a great deal. His untimely death leaves a massive void, but none deeper than for his amazing wife Ella, and their fantastic kids Julianne, Catherine, Elma and Pat.
Ní Bheidh A Leithéid Ann Arís.
© Catherine Lascurettes, Cúl Dara Consultancy
