Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee on the important issue of assessing the report of the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss. I thank the EPA for the important work it does with research and monitoring etc. This does not always get acknowledged but it is important we acknowledge it here.

I wish to speak about water quality obviously, but also on the derogation issue which has had a lot of coverage over the last number of weeks. I come from west Cork, a region in which dairy is an incredibly important sector. It is an important sector in the whole county but it is even more important in west Cork for employment and the rural and regional economy, etc. Obviously, the Commission's recent reduction in the stocking rate from 250 kg to 220 kg has had an impact. Many farmers are incredibly concerned. Many of them are questioning the viability of their farms, especially smaller dairy farmers who may be milking 60 or 70 cows. Due to the impact this will have, they may lose ten or 15 cows, which will impact their viability. I do not question the EPA's science. I am aware that this has been called into question in the past. It monitors the pollution levels of a water body such as an estuary, river or lake, and gets results which show whether those levels are improving or deteriorating. We cannot dismiss that information.

I want to discuss the solution and how best to go about improving water quality while holding onto a viable indigenous industry - the dairy industry - which is most impacted by reduced stocking rates. While I do not believe the EPA science should be called into question, the Teagasc science should also be taken seriously and we should be listening to some of its recommendations. I have visited the Timoleague catchment area a number of times. The witnesses may or may not be familiar with the work that is being done there as part of a 15-year research project. Water quality is being assessed; specifically, the extent to which nitrates are entering the river and eventually going into the estuary. It is quite interesting. I would like the views of the witnesses regarding the potential solution. Clearly, we need to do something about our estuaries. I see it myself. Many of our estuaries on the south-west coast have algal blooms, sea lettuce in particular. This is impacts biodiversity, takes all the oxygen and has a detrimental impact. There is no doubt that we need to improve the situation there. The question comes down to what the ideal solution is.

The Teagasc scientists will say it is far more effective, in terms of improving water quality, to be compliant regarding the storage of slurry and when it is spread. The witnesses may not be able to answer this question but I mentioned a dairy farmer who has 70 cows. Will better improvements in water quality be achieved by taking 15 cows from that dairy farmer but not ensuring he or she is compliant, or would better results be achieved by ensuring, for example, that a farmer does not spread during the closed season? Obviously, the crop is not growing during the closed season and is not taking up the nitrogen, which is therefore more likely to seep into the water body.

Surely measures such as low-emission slurry spreading methods, soil management, and managing phosphorus and potassium levels are far more effective than a blunt reduction in cow numbers.