Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentation. We all agree we need to protect and support the second pillar and whatever money comes into Ireland from the European Union.

The representatives of The Environmental Pillar present say they want to support the environmental burden on farmers or land populations. West of the Shannon we had the corncrake scheme, which was working to try to get the corncrake back, but that scheme has not been a success. How are we to promote all farmland birds if we could not make a success of that scheme?

I must disagree with the representatives with regard to the slide on page 3 of their presentation which relates to the move to flat rate payments. That is at odds with the views of the majority of farm organisations and with farmers. It seems The Environmental Pillar is trying to promote more extensive farming. There is a moral issue here with regard to the views of the Government and those of the previous Government on Food Harvest 2020 and increasing production. That would not be achieved under flat rate payments. The moral issue is that within 20 years we expect to have an extra 6 billion people in the world and we will need to produce 50% more food. How will we achieve this if what is proposed goes ahead?

A comment was made on water quality. The Government and the previous Government have introduced schemes and legislation, such as the Water Services (Amendment) Act 2012, which deals with septic tanks. Farm improvement and farm modernisation schemes have helped to make the agriculture sector one of the best protectors of water. It is well known that the biggest polluters of our ground water and our water in general are local authorities. The agri-sector has done its part in improving what was a problem here.

I mentioned the issue of the growth in world population and how sufficient food will be provided for these people. What are the views of The Environmental Pillar with regard to the use of land for the production of food versus energy? Perhaps that is a debate for another day, but it is a question we must face because of the expected growth in population in the next 20 years and because of the need for energy, whether bio-diverse or from fossil fuels. A balance must be struck with regard to the use of lands, such as rainforests, for food or energy crops. Where should that balance be struck?