Mr. Patrick Kent:

I thank the Chairman and other members of this committee for the opportunity to contribute to their deliberations on climate change. The ICSA believes that we have to stop the negative narrative around agriculture and climate change. Instead of being accused of being part of the problem, the ICSA believes that agriculture can be part of the solution. First, let us look at why the negativity around agricultural emissions is misplaced. As a general proposition, we argue that the increase in greenhouse gas emissions is fundamentally linked to excessive consumption of fossil fuel energy linked to economic development. The Irish emissions profile is skewed towards agriculture not because we are excessively bad in terms of farming systems but because we did not partake in the industrial revolution. In addition, only measuring emissions tends to paint livestock farming in a bad light while ignoring the carbon sequestration in growing grass and maintaining hedgerows and trees on typical Irish farming systems. We hear far less about the reality that this is fundamentally a problem of energy consumption based on fossil fuels.

The 2017 Carbon Majors report indicates that 71% of global industrial emissions since 1988 can be linked to just 100 producers, almost all of which are companies in the fossil fuel sectors. Moreover, the real culprits can be seen in the fact that Chinese coal production has tripled since the turn of the millennium and Russian coal production has expanded by 70% since the late 1990s. Meanwhile, it is notable that at the COP23 summit in Bonn in November, which was attended by the ICSA, the host country Germany refused to sign up to a declaration of countries pledging to phase out coal.

This is not to deny that there are emissions from agriculture. At a global level, the figure for agriculture and land use emissions is 24% of total greenhouse gas emissions. However, this figure ignores the fact that this is balanced to a considerable degree by land use and agricultural activities acting as a carbon sink, whereas other sectors provide no benefits in terms of sequestration. In any event, people must eat; this is non-negotiable. However, this raises an interesting question. Why are emissions from fossil fuels attributed to the countries where they are consumed whereas food production emissions are attributed to the countries where the food is grown? The ICSA believes that the question of who is held responsible for emissions needs to be revisited. Specifically, Ireland should not shoulder all of the responsibility for food produced which is actually destined for consumption in other countries both within and outside the EU. Demand for food is a given and is unavoidably linked to global population growth. Presumably, the point of saving the planet does not stand above the need to feed the population of the planet in a hierarchy of imperatives for current or future generations. While the question of which markets we supply is constrained by economics, the impact of emissions from food production knows no geographical boundaries. Hence it is utterly futile to displace food production in Ireland to other parts of the globe in order to satisfy EU or COP21 targets. The reality is that those who consume our food create the demand and thereby are essentially responsible for the emissions.

There is flexibility to reduce food demand by reducing food waste, which can be as high as 33%, but this is more under the control of retailers and consumers than primary producers. We are not saying that we cannot use technological advances to reduce emissions or increase sequestration. Interestingly, there is a research project in Denmark in which the addition of a feed supplement, Mootral, can lead to a 58% reduction in methane emissions from livestock.

We must remember that we are already starting from a good position as Irish livestock products such as meat and dairy are among the most efficient in terms of carbon footprint per kilogram of product. There is no logic to reducing Irish meat exports to satisfy European demand for protein and then making up the gap with imports from South America or other countries where the environmental damage is much higher. Schemes under the rural development programme can make a difference but we have to refocus them so that they deliver real income to farmers who go the extra mile to deliver climate change improvement rather than just cover costs or use farmers to circulate money to others. With regard to forestry targets, it is important to understand that the compulsion to re-plant trees on land at clearfell is creating a barrier to some farmers taking the multi-generational decision to get into forestry. However, I now want to say a bit on how agriculture can make a positive contribution to the climate change challenge in the energy sectors.

ICSA believes there is significant potential to integrate agricultural systems of production with decarbonising electricity production. There is evidence that some European farms, which have a higher cost than Irish farms in production for dairying, for example, are nonetheless more profitable because of the integration of farming with anaerobic digestion systems, solar energy or community-based wind farm projects. However, what is missing is a secure investment environment due to uncertainty around Government policy and market stability. ICSA believes we need a stable and viable Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariff, REFIT, regime and a commitment to seriously reconsider the detached attitude displayed to date on anaerobic digestion. We should favour solar panels on the roofs of sheds also.

European agriculture has immense potential to provide very substantial gains in the emissions profile of transport energy. For example, European crop-based ethanol is heading towards almost 70% less greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels on a whole life-cycle basis. Given that transport energy is well behind electricity and heating and cooling in terms of meeting the EU 27% renewable energy target for 2030, it is incredible to think that the EU clean energy package includes a proposal for a revised renewable energy directive that will undermine the limited progress made to date on transport energy. Ireland should actively oppose the EU proposals to reduce the first generation biofuel mandate from 7% to 3.8% under the revised renewable energy directive. This is now at the trilogue stage in Brussels.

Key crop based biofuels grown by EU farmers represent a win-win for farmers, for declining rural communities and for climate change objectives. In addition, they reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels. Ireland should increase biofuel blending rates in conventional combustion engines. In the short term this is likely to be far more effective than trying to buck the market in terms of getting people to buy electric vehicles that they do not want and cannot afford, and having regard to the fact that heavy transport and long distance travel will not use electric vehicles in the short to medium term anyway.

To conclude, I emphasise that the need for food security globally dictates that we should continue to advocate for efficient Irish livestock systems supplying meat, dairy and cereals to affluent consumers in Europe. I notice that some people believe we may be able to grow beans west of the Shannon. At a garden level we may be able to do so but from an agricultural perspective, it is not possible to grow beans more than one year in five in the very best land in the south or south east of the country. Harvesting can be a problem in some years. We are producing premium quality beef and there is no better food than can be eaten than beef cooked in butter from the west of Ireland. It sure beats beans any day and we do not need to use any tomato ketchup. It is hypocritical in the extreme to talk about cutbacks in livestock in Ireland or taxes on livestock farming while at the same time Europe proposes to import more meat from the likes of South America and Canada under trade deals.