Mr. Bill Callanan:

The Department financially supports the pollinator plan and promotes it in its publications, etc. Some positive pollinator actions that farmers can take are set out in a couple of interesting booklets. They are supported by the actions taken in schemes like the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme. Things like bee habitats and wild bird cover are tremendously positive for the likes of pollinators. This is what we mean by co-benefits. Our campus in Backweston was managed in a pollinator-friendly way this year. Large areas of the campus were not cut. We are very keen to support pollinators. We introduced bees to the roof of Agriculture House earlier this year. A number of locations in central Dublin are now used for beekeeping.

Reference has been made to grant aid schemes. Under the horticulture aid scheme, support is given to the Irish Beekeepers Association for physical infrastructure. We also provide a service with regard to diseases in bees, etc. This is being implemented through the Backweston campus as a further service to the industry.

We were also asked about derogations, etc. The demand for flexibility during the closed period is an issue that we have discussed. Dr. Haughey has articulated the reasons we are so keen to proceed in this regard. The most attractive way to reduce the use of nitrogen fertiliser is to use slurries in a better way. That is driving our thinking. I would be wrong to suggest that we are lax in our implementation of the nitrates directive. There is a role for housing in this regard. The whole-territory approach taken in Ireland is not common everywhere. Ireland is one of just seven or eight countries that include phosphorous, as well as nitrogen, in the implementation of the nitrates directive. The impact of phosphorous on water quality is as big as that of nitrogen. Overall, we are taking a strong approach to the implementation of the directive. We avail of a derogation by allowing some more intensive farming to take place. That comes at an additional cost to the farmers in question, who are required to take additional measures. There is a quid pro quoin this case. Generally speaking, pasture land does not tend to be a leaky as other types of farming land. This has an impact on the risks associated with it. We must comply with certain conditions that apply when a derogation is being applied for. We take a strong approach in this area.

On the quality of hedges, I should point out that hedge cutting is not controlled by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. As I have pointed out previously, the issue is the timing of hedge cutting rather than its impact on the carbon content. There is ongoing work in this area. I have cautioned people in this respect on a few occasions. Hedgerows are a big sink in terms of carbon emissions and sequestered carbon. They account for approximately 6% of the landscape. We see them as important. The only thing that is of value, in terms of credit, is the additionality. Work is ongoing with regard to the change of management and understanding the carbon content. Rather than using hedgerows as a get-out-of-jail card by saying we have a significant number of them, we need to focus on the extent to which additional planting is different from what was being done in 2005. No additional credit arises unless the area covered by hedgerows is bigger than the area covered by hedgerows in the baseline year.