Mr. Conor Mulvihill:

There is scant evidence - limited evidence - regarding stocking rate and the derogation and water quality. We had that in our report and we question where did the 220 kg N/ha figure come out of. We strongly challenged on that. We also challenge the point - you will see it regarding the report - that it is not just a livestock issue. We accept, and anyone with logic would state that because agriculture is 80% to 90% of the landmass, it of course is one of the big pressures on water. We accept that; there is no evading the science. Forget about us, though, it is what the farmer feels and the farmer feels persecuted. That is what we are getting. Farmers do not talk about price any more, they talk about persecution regarding water quality and GHGs. The price has only been coming to the end of it in recent times. Whatever about GHGs, which are nearly esoteric, people know about their water quality. They want to be there and they want good water quality in their rural communities. It is very easy to access farmers on that and I note the examples given by the people from the co-ops here who are working with farmers. The agricultural sustainability support and advisory programme, ASSAP, that we have been working with for the last couple of years, has a 97% take-up rate from the farmers. Farmers want to embrace it but we do try to work with the EPA to explain that we are only one of the pressures. We are a key pressure, which we acknowledge, we are not trying to wash our hands of it. As the EPA will be coming in on this issue in the next couple of weeks, I know the committee will have questions for it.