Ms Laura Burke:

Yes.

In the context of technology on the agricultural side, we have anaerobic digestion, which provides opportunities for win-win situations regarding agricultural and other waste and energy generation. This is very common. We do not need research on the technology but we need to look at the barriers to implementation. The EPA has carried out research in respect of the initial upfront capital costs. None of this should be discounted.

Senators Paul Daly and Mulherin mentioned the carrot-and-stick approach in agriculture. The EPA has a wide range of roles. We have a regulatory role regarding intensive agriculture and we have worked very closely with the IFA in recent years in terms of focusing on behavioural change. In our regulatory role, we need to ensure compliance and that various organisations do not cause environmental damage. However, we must also think about incentives and working with the 130,000 farms throughout the country in order that they will be more resource efficient. This would be a win-win situation through the money the farms would save, as Professor Fitzgerald has already alluded to, and through the environmental benefit. We have been working with the IFA for a number of years on this. The relevant programme has been very successful programme and involves peers talking to peers, with farmers talking to farmers. It is not the EPA or some other entity instructing people what to do. Farms volunteer to do various tests and they then speak to their neighbours and their communities to tell them that by doing certain actions, on which the EPA, Teagasc or other bodies have advised, they have saved money and helped the environment. This programme supports and works with people rather than talks to them, which is important.

The EPA has a regulatory role over intensive agriculture. Recognising the points made by Senator Paul Daly, we have a priority site list for enforcement. We enforce just under 800 industrial licences, including for intensive agriculture. Disappointingly, the food and drink sector is high up on the priority site list for non-compliance with licence requirements. This is not about going above and beyond. It is about the industry causing nuisance through odour, noise and environmental damage. We cannot say that we are clean and green - and sell to other countries throughout the world on this basis - while not being in basic compliance with these requirements. I hear what members have said about some of the work in the agricultural sector but there is an awful lot more to be done.

We have tracked greenhouse gas inventories since 1990. There were reductions but we are now seeing an increase in the sector year on year and this is very much linked to livestock numbers. When numbers decreased, emissions also decreased. With livestock numbers increasing, however, emissions are also increasing. We will have to have a discussion on what carbon neutrality means. There has to be encouragement and support but we also need to recognise that the sector has a responsibility to comply with environmental requirements. We need a combination of all of these factors.