Mr. Bill Callanan:

The EPA has modelled where the catchment pressures are arising. That is disaggregated whether agriculture is the main driver, which it is not exclusively, or where forestry is the main driver. I do not have the figures. These are really questions for the EPA. My understanding, off the top of my head, is that the catchments primarily impacted by agriculture are around 60%. I think it is 15% or 16% in terms of forestry, and then there is urban wastewater, residues, etc. There is a disaggregation at national level in terms of what is generating the greatest pressure for the water body locally. I am not an expert on the forestry side, but it is not correct to say there are no actions with regard to those. The requirements for appropriate assessment, indeed for the planting of forestry and so on, must all take account of issues the Deputy is talking about and how to minimise loading from the likes of forestry. However, in the context of today's discussion, in particular around the 220 kg N/ha derogation, etc., I would be careful about suggesting that forestry as opposed to livestock is the major issue in those areas with derogation farming. The Deputy has said it himself that the map represents where derogation farming is happening. I do not have the forestry figures, but they do not align particularly closely with the level of activity of the pair.