Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank all three witnesses for their contributions and their responses to Deputy Canney. I have some questions and observations.

One of the threads running through the report and all the expert commentary on what we are required to do between now and 2030 on the climate agenda and the transition is that we need to be more decisive now, sooner rather than later, because there are a range of additional costs if we move beyond that tipping point. There is obvious environmental damage and the costs associated with that. There are also fiscal costs as well as economic and social implications.

The announcement in the last budget of the €14 billion infrastructure and nature climate fund was very welcome. A not insignificant component of that is just over €3 billion ring-fenced for climate and nature. Remarkably and given the obvious deficiencies we have with planning out to 2030 and what is an under resourced national development plan, is it not quite extraordinary that as far as Government is concerned this fund is not capable of being tapped into until 2026? Nobody has given me a sufficient explanation as to why that is the case given that the emergency is now. We have had these discussions routinely with representatives of the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council and others outlining that the last thing anybody wants to do is to inflate the economy beyond where it is at the moment; we have capacity constraints. Based on the council's report and the conversation today, it is clear that we need to act more quickly. Would it not make more sense to tap into that fund now, if we are prepared to do that, in addition to what is already committed in the national development plan around adaptation and mitigation?

Related to that I wish to ask about something that is more current and topical. Yesterday, the European Parliament finally voted for the nature restoration legislation. There is an enormous job that this State and other EU states need to do to assist farmers in that transition. In IFAC's consideration of all these matters and in talking about the kinds of investments the State needs to make in that transition to support the agriculture sector, has it factored in what is required under the new nature laws in moving to that point?

Has IFAC factored in what is required under the nature laws in moving to that point over the next period? I am looking at something I pulled from an IFAC report in September or October earlier. I used these figures in a press statement I made around then. It referred to extra spending of between €1.6 billion and €3 billion a year to assist farmers with the transition, retrofitting and so on. There is a very real debate - it is not abstract - about how we support farmers through this. We know the agricultural sector is the biggest sector, next to transport, in emissions. We know the challenges. There will have to be changes. Everybody has to confront that and be realistic about it. The agricultural sector needs to be resourced and paid, quite frankly. That is part of what will happen. It needs a plan, as Professor McMahon said. It needs that certainty. What does that certainty look like in IFAC's opinion? How do we practically support the agricultural sector in moving from where we are now to the point where we need to be, given what we know will be the obligations on the sector? That includes existing obligations to allow us to meet climate targets and additional obligations that will be placed on it in the context of the nature restoration laws passed yesterday.