Mr. Eamonn Farrell:

I will respond on the timeframe and the compelling case. When it was introduced, the fifth nitrates action programme included a range of new measures, such as banding the changes to soil water, changes to the closed period for fertiliser and organic manure and changes to the chemical fertiliser allowances. What is deeply frustrating is that none of these measures was given the appropriate time to be implemented before the reduction from 250 kg N/ha to 170 kg N/ha came into being. The timeframe for the adoption of measures can vary depending on factors such as soil type, weather, hydromorphology and farm management practices. It is about adopting the right measure in the right place depending on the soil type. We suggest that, on a catchment-by-catchment basis, a full assessment be done as to what the appropriate measures would be in each catchment and what impact the time horizon for those would have. The MACC maps out the extent to which greenhouse gases could be reduced by each measure. A similar case should be prepared in advance of the next negotiations with the European Commission to fully arm our State. In the previous negotiations, the four criteria that were established for the reduction from 250 kg N/ha to 220 kg N/ha were deeply unfair. For example, the one-year trend was not based on science. Another example was the at risk of eutrophication status. Those were bars we could not meet. Fairness is needed. If fairness is brought into the negotiations, we can secure the derogation. As has been mentioned, farmers have reduced fertiliser usage significantly, total livestock numbers have declined and the growth in dairy numbers has decelerated, being less than 1% last year. In the previous negotiations, the European Commission raised the issues of increasing cow numbers and increasing fertiliser usage, so the changes that have happened need to be recognised in the next round of negotiations.