Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

We would have focused on communicating the challenge that it might drop because obviously a farmer must look at it and work with their adviser to see how best to deal with a potential drop to 220 kg N/ha. The Deputy made a fair point about time. Farmers, particularly farmers who have a derogation, are closely monitoring how they apply nutrients. As part of the derogation process, there are extra requirements on those farmers who farm above the 170 kg N/ha in how they manage their farms and nutrient loadings.

When accepted for derogation each farmer must comply with additional measures and steps. There is a lot happening there and across the board. We need to double down on that and put ourselves in a good position to improve water quality so that we can renegotiate and resecure the derogation. However, whenever we make the argument, which I did, about giving time for measures to take effect, there is that backdrop of a ten-year period during which water quality did not improve and, indeed, disimproved in many instances. From 2006 to around 2013, we saw improvements in water quality but the trend from 2013 onwards has been one of disimprovement, and that has been the challenge for the time argument. We ended up with no choice but to agree to a year-on-year comparison between 2021 and 2022 in order to hold the 250 kg N/ha for the first part of the derogation. If we had looked at trends prior to that, we would have been automatically in a situation whereby it would be very hard to start off a derogation with 250 kg N/ha.