Mr. David Flynn:

The Deputy asked quite a few questions there. If I do not get to them all, he can pick me up on it. First, the Deputy asked about alignment between us and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. There is a very close working relationship between us and our colleagues in agriculture. We work very closely, particularly on nitrates, and also on the CAP strategic plan, the water framework directive and a whole load of these issues. There is certainly common interest on all of those matters, so I have no issue with that. I hope my colleagues do not have issues either.

On the contributions, in our river basin management plan we break the country down into water bodies, which includes different aspects of rivers, lakes and groundwater. We have attributed sources of pollution that are causing issues, and causing those water bodies not to meet the status requirements, to 11 different causes of which agriculture is just one. We are able to disaggregate the causes. I will not go through them all but agriculture, hydromorphology, which is the shape and the flow in rivers forestry, urban wastewater and urban runoff are the top ones of those 11. Agriculture is 1,000 out of the 4,842, followed by hydromorphology, then forestry, then urban wastewater. We have better data now than we have ever had before. We are able to disaggregate those causes. It is not the case that there is one issue and one cause. It is usually contributory from each of the causes. We have better data now, which is largely and almost entirely down to the work of the EPA and local authorities in terms of that analysis. Now, as policymakers, we have better information than we have ever had before.

On the 2027 target, it is certainly a very challenging date. It is essentially around the corner. It is a challenge right across Europe. We are talking about a water framework directive from 2000 and a nitrates directive from 1991. These are not new issues. The Deputy talked about the effectiveness of each programme. I would not be perhaps quite as pessimistic as the Deputy was in his question. There has been a contribution on effectiveness from past programmes. I think we certainly would be in a much worse situation had we not had that continual strengthening of programmes and even the midterm reviews of those programmes that we spoke about earlier. I believe the fifth nitrates action programme is a very good programme. We were here around this time last year and I would make the same comments again. It is really about adherence to the programme. We can send out inspectors and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine can send out inspectors, but we cannot be everywhere. There needs to be support, adherence and acceptance that these rules are for the collective good among the farming industry itself and the industry that those farmers are supplying.

There are three layers of enforcement. Local authorities are out doing the general nitrates enforcement. Every single farmer in the country has to adhere to those general rules. A stricter set of conditions applies to the derogation for farmers, which our colleagues in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine look at. There is a joint programme between our Department and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Part of the fifth nitrates action programme is an improvement in the local authority enforcement and work through the EPA and local authorities to use risk profiling and targeting into those areas of contribution to really get the most out of the resources that will be available in that area. There is a set target as to how many derogation farms have to be inspected. The same target does not apply to the general farming population. The EPA is in the process of putting together a risk-based enforcement plan that will cover that. That covers enforcement.

The Deputy mentioned a period of 18 to 24 months. We are essentially talking about how long it will take to improve water quality. It will vary. For phosphorous, because it can adhere to the particles in the soil, it can take many years for the system to readjust once the source load has changed. With nitrates it tends to be a more linear and quicker response, but it is still very much dependent on the local geology and soil type. I might refer to Dr. Archbold to say more on that. If we think about the chain that is needed, the policy needs to be changed, that needs to be implemented, there needs to be a response in the water and that needs to be measured. There is a distance there. The previous contributors mentioned a period of 18 to 24 months. It is not an unreasonable point to make. In some cases it can take some time to show up in the environment and then to be captured by monitoring. It is a process.