Mr. Tom Canning:

I will just refer back to Deputy Kerrane's question with regard to involvement. We need to put this in perspective. As we said, water quality is a national issue. There are two significant positives we have to take here. First, Ireland's water quality is in the top three or four countries in Europe. That is hugely positive.

Second, as my colleagues said, between ourselves and our colleagues in Teagasc, there are 125,000 active farmers who submit basic income support for sustainability, BISS, applications each year. Of those we are dealing with 55,000 and our counterparts in Teagasc with 43,000. We have active engagement with 98,000 farmers. We are an army in waiting. I have been in the advisory business for more than 34 years but do I feel engaged with it? No. I have been excluded from the ASSAP and from the signpost programme and more than likely I will be excluded from the new European innovation partnership, EIP, on water quality. I feel angry about that because I have been dealing with derogation farmers on a consistent basis for a very long number of years.

With regard to the current regulations, as Mr. Feeney alluded to, there are 39 regulations on top of good agricultural and environmental condition, GAEC, applying to a derogation farm in Ireland. There are 7,000 farmers in derogation plus 6,000 exporting slurry. There are only 13,000 of the 125,000 farmers - just over 10% of farmers - who are really affected by the overall nitrate limit of 170 kg N/ha. Hoping to achieve water quality improvements overnight by simply taking away derogation from these guys is a myth. It is misinformation. It needs time for the existing regulations to work. The regulations have really confused and frustrated farmers and I see a growing anger among the people I deal with. We need to go back with a very simple message to our guys. We have outlined it in the document we presented to the committee.

The first point is respect for and adherence to the closed period for the application of organic manures, which ties in with TAMS support and fast-tracking of planning applications.

The second point is the responsible application of organic and inorganic manures and fertilisers. I will provide a perfect example. The other day, I inspected a derogation farm that observed a 2 m exclusion area - the farmer had fenced off his watercourse and had no drinking points on it - and applied a buffer margin when applying slurry. On the other side was a farmer in his late 70s with eight cattle on a 25-acre farm using a round feeder and two of them standing in the exact same drain they were drinking out of. Does that make sense? My man was throwing up his hands in frustration asking what was going on.

The third point is the effective use of chemical fertilisers. We use Teagasc’s nutrient management planning system, which is critical for water quality and providing advice to our farmers. It has been supported through the introduction of the new fertiliser database. Along with the cost of fertiliser, the database has focused farmers’ attention on the efficient and effective use of fertilisers.

We have simplified this message into a single-page recommendation, with colour-coded maps that the farmer can use. There is a clear guideline. Let us make this message simple.

In terms of involving us in this process as a private adviser, we have the recipe, that being, the ACRES format of training for farmers. We are calling for mandatory training for farmers with a stocking rate of over 130 kg N/ha. Bring them in, explain to them the sense behind these mitigation measures, and then bring them to a farm and show the measures working in plain and simple terms. That could make a significant contribution and bring this army in waiting that we have in our members along with us now that we have effective communication with our farmers, not over-regulating them and engaging in knee-jerk reactions to water quality reports.