Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their attendance and thank Mr. Callanan for his presentation. I note Mr. Callanan's point that the fact that agriculture produces one third of our greenhouse gas emissions reflects the importance of agriculture in the economy. It is easy to say one third of Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions are from agriculture but where do we rank in respect of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture when compared with other countries with a similar land mass or population? I imagine we are relatively low in the ranking, although I am not certain about that. Transport is also responsible for a significant proportion of our greenhouse gas emissions.

It has been suggested that the beef data genomics scheme is an improvement. Certainly, the life of animals is shortened as they are sent for slaughter at an earlier age, thus reducing the time they spend polluting the atmosphere. This is really what the scheme is about.

I am frequently told that we will end up with a poorer quality beef animal as a result of the beef data genomics scheme.

We are moving away from the continental breeds to other breeds and changing the way it traditionally has been done in Ireland. An additional 10,000 animals are killed every year. The figure is growing all the time and how will that work in the future?

I refer to the beef data genomic programme and other schemes, including the targeted agricultural modernisation schemes, TAMS, to try to find more efficient application of manure. Is any effort being made to consider biodigesters and ways of removing the gases before using the fertiliser? Given that is prevalent in other countries, why is that not an option for Ireland?

I attended a meeting in County Leitrim last week about afforestation. Farmers are very worried that there is more land being planted with trees around them and that they cannot buy it. We have had that discussion on trying to define the problem. One point that comes up is monoculture, in that we plant all the same species of tree, namely, Sitka spruce. We plant them by the hundreds of thousands and nothing else. Most people will tell one that from an ecological perspective, one must have a mix to sustain wildlife and we do not have that in general. The same species of tree is being grown everywhere because an industry has grown to service the Sitka spruce plantations and there are methods for easy extraction, transport and processing of that type of timber. I take on board Deputy Cahill's point about land that is suitable for forestry, and when one travels through north Leitrim, as I did yesterday, one could say what else could one do with that land? The issue is that people live in Leitrim and they want to continue to live there and farm that land. They want to be supported to do that. Yet, we find that the only option is to use the land to plant trees, which ultimately pushes the people out. That is the reality unless we do something. As for land in areas of natural constraint, ANC, unless we do something to help the people who live in those areas to use the land productively - other than by planting them - we may as well simply lock the doors on all those small towns and villages because nobody will want to come to live in the middle of forestry. To avail of grants for afforestation, at present the regulations state that when one plants the land, one must ensure that the land will be replanted when the trees are finally cut. That means it is a permanent change of land use and the land will never revert to farming again. That is something that goes against the grain of the vast majority of rural people in Ireland. One is just closing down the land.

Another impact of coniferous afforestation that we seeing is the increasing acidification of the landscape and the rivers. A person who works in the National Parks and Wildlife Service has told me that every October, the trees release highly acidic sap back into the soil, which gets washed into our rivers and lakes where it is killing fish and other things in the rivers. There are other effects of afforestation with which we need to deal; it is not just about the farming community taking the hump because people are buying the land in their area. We need to recognise that there must be other ways of dealing with land use. At that meeting, people spoke about agriforestry. In other countries farmers plant portions of their land but do not plant it densely. It is planted in a way that the cattle and sheep can graze underneath the trees. It is a mix of both farming and forestry and the trees help to dry the land. Are such options possible? Another option that was also mentioned was biomass. Deputy Cahill is quite correct to raise the ridiculousness of the idea of importing biomass from other countries to fuel what used to be our peat stations. People with marginal land must have the option to grow some of this biomass, which would be a shorter-term crop that can be grown and harvested and which will give employment and keep people working the land, as they will have some stake in it. Is there any sign of subsidies to ensure that can happen? From my understanding, having spoken to people who came before the committee on this matter, we have been told it is not feasible unless the Government steps up to the mark and supports the production of biomass. Will anything happen in that respect? All we hear about biomass is that the peat plants will be changed to biomass plants but there is no sign of where the biomass will come from or who will pay for this.

We all seek the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and a greener way to produce products but unless we are prepared as a society to put up the money to make it happen, it is only talk. I would be interested in the views of the committee on this.