Mr. Bill Callanan:

There were many different questions to deal with there. To break them down, structurally, it is important to understand that the objective of improved water quality was set by a directive agreed across Europe. That Nitrates Directive is there since 1991 and the Water Framework Directive is there since 2006. In terms of anybody setting a target it is a target that is set right across Europe and we therefore do not have any suggested opportunity in terms of saying it should not apply here.

With regard to the EPA's role it is simply reporting against that target. That is it. I fully accept the evidence put before me.

In terms of what we can do and who is responsible for impacting on water quality, a lot of that is done on modelling and there is no doubt about that. Ask anybody about a model and they will always say there is a flaw in every model but some models are better than others. I would be careful about a narrative that farmers are getting a bad deal because I can assure the Deputy the knowledge level is growing every day. It is growing at a massive rate. I spoke at an EPA conference a month ago as part of that water quality outreach and there was a presentation the Deputy should look at. It was about the local authority waters programme, LAWPRO, and its capacity to establish load by area and what is impacting in terms of water quality. That knowledge is growing so it would be wrong of me to suggest an expected "get out of jail" clause for farming.

I have been clear with people about the nitrates derogation map, that in relation to the criteria it would not be one that would be applied if looking at it from a purely derogation point of few. The inclusion of Leitrim or other areas has been used as an example where effectively water quality was driven by phosphorous rather than nitrates and that is not in any way connected to farming intensity. It is about soil type. There are other areas. We have been clear and honest about that. I have equally challenged that if anybody were to bring up or propose criteria of a different nature, it would not make a major difference to those areas that are in derogation in significant numbers. It would not and it would be incorrect to suggest if we designed different criteria to generate a map if would have made a difference in those areas where there is the most common derogation farming or most regular farming under derogation.

The last question concerned whether we can improve water quality. When I look at this I look at it in terms of whether or not we can make improvements, I am clear that I think we can, working with farmers. How far that can bring us is a challenge naturally and scientifically in terms of distance to the target but we can make improvements. We know farm practice can improve in terms of the loading and how that is managed, the appropriate application time for fertilisers and slurries. Looking at the progress farmers have made, the ask was around environmental demands and how they fit in. Farmers have made a tremendous improvement in terms of nutrient use efficiency by using slurry more efficiently which has allowed the reduction in chemical fertilisers. That is supported by Department initiatives such as multi-species sward support, red clover, support for soil sampling etc. When the soil sampling programme is concluded we will have close to a quarter million of soil samples having been supported by the State. That is what I mean about the collective ambition with the objective of maintaining output, which was the original question. We can make a difference in the improvement of water quality. I am confident of that but it is not easy because there are outside factors. Everyone will recall that recently there was a publication about a very heavy water event - I think in Wexford - that had a profound impact in terms of phosphorous loss. Those are things we have to get a better understanding of. I can assure everybody the knowledge about impact on water quality is growing. It would be an incorrect message and we are not just saying this, industry is saying it. It is now engaged with us in common messages to farmers. How do we get practice change on the ground that will improve water quality to put us in the best place for arguing for a continuation of derogation should be our shared objective.