Dr. Aine O'Connell:

On the proposals to the Commission regarding the assessment procedure on which I will talk solely, we think the criteria imposed by the Commission are flawed and the red map is a result of that. It does not line up with the map the EPA has drawn, that is, map 9, Targeting Agricultural Measures. What we have requested in our submission to the Commission is a longer time period to compare. Comparing two years of data is not sufficient. We need a longer window. The agricultural catchments programme, ACP, and, in general, other peer-reviewed scientific papers would always refer to a four-year rolling average that is statistically verified using the Mann-Kendall test. We would look at a more fair, appropriate assessment of that time period and at what trends are really occurring and that period of difference.

We would also question the inclusion of estuaries, specifically because estuaries are a catch-all for all pressures. They are the ends of the line so all the pressures feed into the estuaries. A reduction in stocking rate alone is too big an ask to deliver an improvement in estuaries, particularly when, as Mr. Herlihy has alluded to, in winter, the pressure from wastewater is almost equal to that from agriculture. We need to consider excluding estuaries.

We also need to look at the nutrification status. It was clear enough this morning that the nutrification status has very little to do with the stocking rate. While there is a correlation between free-draining soils, cow density and nitrates, and we can disagree or agree on the interpretation of that, there is absolutely no correlation between stocking rate and nutrification status. That is why a lot of random counties, such as Leitrim and Mayo, are being included when we would not expect that to be the case. Nutrification is much more complex than the stocking rate that feeds into it. As the witnesses said this morning, phosphorous, nitrogen, macroinvertebrates, the ecology, water and macrophytes play a part. The situation is complex and many factors feed in. It is unfair to expect a reduction in stocking rate alone to feed into changes in nutrification status. We therefore think that should not be a factor in assessing whether we go to 220 kg N/ha.

On the assessments, we have, in our submission to the Commission, made the proposal that they should not be in line with the assessment criteria. They are not new but they are scientifically valid and accepted by the science community. They need to be accepted here. In addition, the comparison every two years is not even in line with the EU's directive itself. The nitrates action programme and the water framework directive are reviewed every four years.