Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome Dr. Cotter and her team. She kicked off nicely with the term "scientific integrity". I will be putting it to her that is not scientific and that its integrity is questionable. I will give some background. I have read the report in great detail. As the Chair said, I think this report has exercised many others. I have also read the IFA's submission on the validity of the two-year review in determining water quality trends and I think it needs some comments. I know representatives of the IFA are here and I have no doubt others are tuned in. I have a few comments and questions before I elaborate.

Balanced analysis of water quality data is required to formulate national policy. The EPA report will have a profound impact on agriculture. We need to take an holistic approach to agriculture. We talk about sustainability, profitability and viability in this industry. We have overarching policies and the EPA cannot operate an isolation from our overarching national policy. I would like Dr. Cotter to comment on that later.

It has been suggested to me that the EPA excluded sources of nutrients or contaminants in our waters other than agriculture. Will Dr. Cotter clarify the logic and scientific basis of that because that clearly has a major impact on the science of it? Let us face it, much of this is about science. That science needs to stack up and be validated. I am seriously concerned about that assertion and I put that to Dr. Cotter.

It has also been suggested to me that the EPA report focused on the winter monitoring results from estuaries and coasts. Such capture would, of course, include significant overflows. Dr. Cotter will be familiar with that in terms of our urban wastewater. I live in south County Dublin and our rivers are being constantly monitored for overflows from urban washing machines, misconnect fits and everything. We see detergents and everything in our streams and we see occasional fish kills. Therefore, we know there are these issues of concern. Does Dr. Cotter accept the contamination is not all from agriculture?

Clearly, we have the runoff from rainwater onto porous and not so porous land. Different conditions in different soils will impact on how porous it is and the runoff of water to that. Both have an impact in terms of penetration down or runoff across. Dr. Cotter will be mindful of the considerable Teagasc research which demonstrates that nitrate losses to water are caused by a multitude of factors. Given that a multitude of factors are involved, it is too easy to say it is just coming from agriculture.

I will not spend too much time talking about the measures farmers have used and adopted to protect the waters; Dr. Cotter knows them. They include increased training, enhanced slurry spreading requirements, diversion, planting margins and maintaining buffer zones. She is aware of all that good practice. I accept that farmers recognise there is considerable work to do. However, the common criticism I have heard about the report relates to the lag time. Dr. Cotter will be very familiar with it. Farmers have adopted emergency measures. The EPA is adjudicating on this particular period, but there is a lag time for all this to happen. Many measures have been put in place in the past 12 months. I and many committee members have seen some of these measures on the ground. Therefore, there is a lag time. Would it not have been more prudent to have taken a much longer term view or an interim view?

I was in Teagasc's Moorepark facility. One of the things that inspired me was the number of young farmers who were interested in new technologies and want to do the right thing. They want to be sustainable, but they also need to be profitable. That is a concern. We need to recognise that farmers need to maximise their competitiveness. They need to reduce their emissions. They want to protect their water courses. They want to improve the biodiversity on their farms but they also want a livelihood and that is the challenge for us in this committee. I think it is also a challenge for the EPA because we need to be responsible. We cannot take back words. The scientific validity and credibility of what the EPA puts out on paper has enormous impact.

Rightly, we should robustly examine the EPA to ascertain if it is fully confident that it can stand over further scrutiny of its report. I also want to ask if it is hopeful. Where is the hope? I want the EPA to hear that. I do not think it has acknowledged as well as it could the measures that have happened. I believe this is premature. There are knock-on effects and there is a lag time. We need to be clear about that lag time.

If agriculture, forestry and rural areas are to become more productive, resilient and sustainable, all of those involved in research, sciences and innovation must work together to provide farmers with expertise, assistance and encouragement. We are central to that as policymakers. I believe the EPA has a fundamental role in that too. It is not some sort of isolated body. It is a State agency doing important and valuable work. However, it also has a responsibility to the greater issue and the greater policy.

I would like Dr. Cotter to spend some time touching on some of those points. At the heart of this matter is the integrity of the EPA's scientific work, and how it can stand over that. I am not here to apologise for rural communities or farmers because I know they are doing their utmost to be compliant. They need assistance and validated research. Where the EPA has fallen down is that it has not given enough time to the lag period. I want that to be explained and I want to hear the rationale for it. I again thank Dr. Cotter and her team for being here.