Dr. Matthew Crowe:

I will start with the Deputy's final question in regard to the top priority. It probably would be the outcomes-based approach recommendation that we have made. We have made three or four key recommendations, which are mentioned in the opening statement, but there are many other recommendations. We need an outcomes-based approach, particularly because this is the third cycle. There will be further cycles. This is the final cycle of the water framework directive, but catchment management will be around long after we are all gone. This thing will continue for a long time. The outcomes-based approach must give equal weighting to protecting the waters that are still in good status and to improving the waters that are at bad, poor or moderate status. Getting that balance right is critical. The catchment approach referenced by Dr. McGoff is the way to do that. The catchment approach requires us to look at both because in these situations we are dealing with complicated land management issues. There is a lot of detail in our submission on the outcome based approach, which the Deputy might want to have a look at.

On the issue of water quality worsening, the committee needs to engage with the EPA to get an up-to-date picture on water quality and exactly what is happening with the trends. There is a need to look under the bonnet. In the second river basin management plan, the priority areas for action were set up. The data published by the EPA show that there are net improvements happening in those areas. Whether that can be ascribed exactly to the work that LAWPRO and ASSAP are doing there is probably too early to tell. It will take a bit longer to be able to unravel all of that. Those improvements are being offset by deterioration in other water bodies in other parts of the country that are outside of the areas for action. The most recent EPA indicator report - the EPA being able to speak with authority on this - shows there is a glimmer of hope. The overall picture is beginning to turn a little. It will take at least one more monitoring cycle, possibly two, to see whether that is a blip or a trend. There is definitely evidence of improvement in certain areas. That indicates that where targeted actions are taken, there is a greater chance of water quality improvements.

The policy cohesion issue is huge. There are different policy issues. In the environmental area alone, there are climate, nature, air quality and water quality issues, but they are all interconnected. The more integrated they are, the better the chance of getting good outcomes for them all. For example, in regard to agriculture, quite often if the farmer is being asked to do a particular thing on a farm, if it is done in a particular way, it will deliver for climate, nature and water and it might also deliver economically for the farmer as well, which amounts to multiple wins. It is very difficult to design systems that are fully integrated because people are more comfortable in their silos. That is a really big challenge. The land use review that is currently going on is really important for all of this because most of these issues are about how we use our land.

In regard to the forestry issue, the forum has made a number of recommendations in regard to forestry as well. Under the climate action plan, there is a target to grow a lot more trees to deal with the carbon neutrality issue. That is a good thing to do but it needs to be done in a way that will improve water quality. The legacy issues of forestry need to be dealt with at the same time as making sure that whatever additional forestry is planted will be good rather than bad for water quality. That too relates to land use and how we work out all of those inter-related things that happen in regard to land. The policy is a little complicated. We have brought attention to this in our submission, where we refer to the need for national policies in different areas to be proofed against the water framework directive. It is important to compare one against the other to make sure other policies, be that CAP, the NAP and so on, will have a positive contribution to water quality over the period of time.

The other point was on urban wastewater. It is the same Department, so at least with urban wastewater and water quality one is dealing with the same Department. Those two should be just hand in glove. Again, we have a number of recommendations in the forum's submission on urban wastewater. The main one is the water bodies that have been identified as being at risk from urban wastewater. It needs to be clearly set out in the plan what is going to happen with them. The second river basin management plan had an appendix in it listing the water services investments that were going to happen over that particular plan period, so it is important something similar is in the third plan. There is probably much better information now than four or five years ago on Irish Water investment. There is far better information on the pressures and identifying where the real pressures are. We can be way more targeted now about all this stuff in the next six years. That comes back to the outcome-based approach again because it must be targeted.