Mr. Bill Callanan:

In terms of our engagement with stakeholders, this is a question that arises. We have added the EPA into the water quality working group to identify how it has come up with its modelling and how the water quality stats are being compiled so that it is very open and transparent. As we have set out, there are many pressures, and industry is one of them. Agriculture is also a pressure. However, we do have to recognise that the evidence and data that is being collected at catchment level is growing exponentially. That has to be understood by farmers as well.

If the Deputy looks at our objectives in terms of engaging with farmers, they have been around a number of clear targets that we wanted to do. Number one was whether we have the right actions in the right place. We divide that into three categories. First, have we the right legislation in place, which is the action programme and the requirements of derogation farmers? Have we the right support, that is, the advisers, etc., as I put out in the EIP? Have we the support structures, such as, for example, the Teagasc advisory programme to assist farmers? However, we have to remember that there is scrutiny by the EPA in relation to the other pressures as well, such as licensed units. There is a hell of a lot of scrutiny for those in terms of the licensing conditions in which they operate as establishment. There is also scrutiny by the EPA of wastewater treatment plants, etc. There is, therefore, increased scrutiny on all sectors, and agriculture cannot deny its responsibility in terms of ensuring what is done in our sector is towards that objective of improving water quality rather than asking what other sectors are doing.

I describe that in many ways the nitrates action programme is around almost ensuring that the best practices are applied by all farmers. When we look back, committees like this would have debated the instances of calendar farming, by way of example, which was very emotive as everybody will recall. Now, the reality is that there is a recognition by the vast majority of farmers of the value of slurry and that it should be applied at the right time, and they are quite annoyed, let us say, when they see non-compliance by others in terms of poor practice. That is the reality of the action programme. It is effectively ensuring that the best practices are applied by all farmers. That is the way we would look at it. I described it at one stage as a backstop, effectively, from a legislative point of view. We know a lot of our best farmers are ahead of the standard in terms of whether it is the use of their slurries, nutrient management on their farms, ensuring there are no losses coming from farmyards in terms of management of rainwater, etc. In simple terms, all sectors are being scrutinised now like never before. The data is at a greater granularity now than ever before.

I spoke at an EPA conference last year, and the Local Authority Waters Programme, LAWPRO, did a presentation afterwards. The level of data and knowledge at catchment level is growing exponentially. Farmers need to be aware and educated of water quality locally to understand how their practice on their farms impacts on water quality locally. That is where the likes of the Teagasc programme for water is very beneficial, the signpost series, etc., in terms of that education piece.