Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

52. To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to provide clarity on whether farmers who are unaware of phosphorus content in their fertiliser will face penalties; what communications have been issued to farmers to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25717/24]

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister about the changes that have been made with regard to the spreading of fertiliser and phosphorous, the new fertiliser limits for soils and the obligation now on farmers for soil testing depending on their stocking rate when it comes to phosphorous. I am particularly thinking of fertilisers like 18-6-12, which is commonly used by farmers, and any suggestion of penalties for farmers who did this by accident and without knowledge of the new changes.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Each bag of fertiliser is required by law to state the fertiliser’s type - whether it is nitrogen, phosphorus or potassium - and the product and minimum content of nutrients, along with their forms and solubility. Indeed, the nutrient content of chemical fertiliser is the main determinant of its price and value to the farmer, with phosphorus being the most expensive nutrient of the three.

To protect water quality, the European Communities (Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Waters) Regulations 2005, or, as they are commonly known, the GAP regulations, set limits regarding the application of certain nutrients, including phosphorus, to agricultural soils. I want to be clear on this point, as I understand there has been some misinformation regarding changes to phosphorous allowances that is causing concern to farmers. Phosphorus limits set out in the GAP regulations have not changed. However, the requirement to have soil samples to inform phosphorous application was extended to more farmers in January 2023. Following finalisation of the current nitrates action programme and introduction of the current GAP regulations, this change was communicated to farmers and advisers through various means in 2022 and again in 2023.

Exceeding fertilisation limits for agricultural soils represents a waste of a farmer’s money through incurring inappropriate and unnecessary costs. In addition, it represents a breach of the GAP regulations and puts the future of our agrifood sector at risk as well due to the risks it presents to Irish water quality.

In the case of direct payment applicants, a breach of the GAP regulations may lead to a sanction being applied to the farmer's CAP payments as appropriate. The scale of the sanction will be determined by the extent and severity of the breach. If a farmer is seeking to avail of a nitrates derogation, such a breach of their phosphorous limit would result in their application for the derogation being rejected and the farmer being deemed ineligible to avail of a nitrates derogation in the following year.

To reduce the risk of the loss of nutrients to water and to maximise economic sustainability, farmers purchasing fertiliser should only buy products that meet their soil's and crops' nutritional requirements. These purchasing decisions should be informed by soil analysis and, where appropriate, engagement of a farm advisory system-accredited agricultural adviser as well.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I probably should not have said new changes because obviously, this was in place and kicked off from January 2023 with regard to soil sampling before spreading phosphorous, and the limitations that are there. However, the INHFA is one organisation that has raised concerns regarding possible penalties on farmers where they have spread the likes of 18-6-12 without knowledge of the limitations that are there, depending on their stocking levels. To be honest, I do not think the communication around this has been very good, and I know the INHFA has said this as well. I ask the Minister for some leniency on this. Where farmers have spread it, they cannot unspread it, and I ask that there be some leniency rather than jumping straight to penalties. I do not think this has been communicated very well and when a large farm organisation like the INHFA is saying the same, consideration needs to be given to some level of leniency and maybe better communication around this.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important to say that there has not been a change with regard to the regulations, apart from for some farmers above the nitrates application's 130 kg N/ha requirement for soil sampling. That was communicated in 2022 and 2023. I know that the Agricultural Consultants Association has raised this and the understanding among farmers about this in the last short period of time, and I take the Deputy's point on the INHFA as well. It is something I have discussed in detail with my team in the Department. I have asked my team to meet with the advisory services and the Agricultural Consultants Association shortly, and also Teagasc, to have a discussion with them on how we can make sure farmers are aware of what the situation is, and also to make sure that if additional communication is required, it can be got to them. The ACA in particular has been flagging this in recent times.

However, as I said, the regulations have not been changed. They have been place. It is important that we all work together to make sure farmers are aware of the situation and their obligations. It is in farmers' interest because they will save money and be more profitable by adhering to the regulations.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his response. I again make the point that perhaps additional communication regarding this could be looked at. I spoke to a couple of random farmers to see if they were aware of the fact that they could not spread a level of phosphorous, depending on their stocking rate, without soil testing. I do not think the awareness is there. When you have a farm organisation telling you that communication has been poor and that its members clearly are not fully aware of it, and that is its read of the situation, I ask that there be leniency with regard to penalties. Farmers are already struggling hugely with respect to income. Costs are very high, and to look to penalise them on this would not be the right thing to do. I ask that a new communication strategy be considered, and that penalties be looked at in a lenient way.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a 1% inspection check on this. That is why it is important that everybody is managing themselves well and doing the right thing in not applying any more fertiliser to the soil than is needed. Of course, that saves money. In the event of a farmer being in the 1% that gets inspected, there is the prospect of a potential penalty. The penalties are small for small infringements by anybody in the 1% who get checked. However, it is really important that everyone works together to make sure there is a full understanding among farmers. As I said, the regulations have not changed. They have been place for a good period of time but some of the advisers and recently the INHFA have raised this issue, so I have asked my team to engage with them in order that everybody works together to make sure the communication piece is as strong as it can be, or to see if there is more needed.

There was communication in 2022 and 2023. However, if the sense is that more is needed, everyone needs to work together. If farmers are unclear, it is important they talk to their agricultural adviser to get good advice. Not only is it in farmers’ interest to do so for profitability, it is also in all of our interests to ensure no more than necessary is spread. It is a waste of money, but it also has water quality implications.