Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I reiterate my thanks to the two professors and I send my best wishes to Professor Boyle as he moves on. I have a number of questions that relate, in the first instance, to the opening statement, which alluded to major reductions equivalent to 51% by 2030 that would require a substantial reduction in the amount of agricultural activity in Ireland. Does this convey that Teagasc is not confident that the assurances the committee has received regarding the separate targets for biogenic methane will offer the leeway for the agricultural sector that has been suggested?

I heard what was said in response to Senator Paul Daly's questions on carbon leakage and what appears to be the crazy suggestion that we would reduce the amount of production that might be in a country such as Ireland in order to import less sustainable product from places such as South America. To return to the Senator's point on consumption and production, we know why we encourage people in Ireland to move to electric vehicles - it is so that we contribute as consumers. If we were to take into account production and consumption at a global level, would this not lead to consumers and governments encouraging consumption of the most sustainable products? This would have a beneficial impact for countries that produce more sustainably and would encourage more sustainable practice. What is Teagasc's position on this?

It was mentioned that greenhouse gas emissions have risen over the past decade as emissions associated with the dairy herd have increased. This was followed by the statement that this has not been fully matched by a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from other cattle. It would be useful if Teagasc could clarify this. Do the witnesses suggest that it is the responsibility of the beef sector to reduce emissions to offset increases in other sectors? Many beef farmers are of the view this is where the strategy has been leading and the pressure on them is, perhaps, as a result of greater profitability in other areas.

The witnesses also mentioned the carbon footprint of Irish beef being low by international standards due to the close interaction between livestock and their feed. In the case of beef, this has a lot to do with the fact it is primarily grassland beef. Biodiversity and landscapes have also been mentioned. With this in mind, would it not be fair to say there should be an onus on promoting the most sustainable types of beef production, which is clearly our suckler herd, for example. When it comes to reducing cattle numbers, or when this suggestion is made, when we compile this with all other beef production, including factory feed lot, which is clearly much less sustainably produced, the easy target is a reduction in the suckler herd even though it is the most sustainable beef product we produce. Would we not be better to target increasing the profitability of our sustainable product as opposed to trying to use reductions in this regard to offset other sectors?

There was quite a bit of focus on the Ag Climatise strategy. Action No. 9 of the latter seeks an increase in the area of land under organic farm production to 350,000 ha by 2030.

From previous ministerial responses, we know that the Government strategy is to aim for the 2019 EU average of 7.5% by the end of the term. As such, it appears that 350,000 ha will account for approximately 10% of land. Is it not a wholly underambitious target that, by 2030, only 10% of land will be participating in organic farming schemes?

The Ag Climatise document states that research will be required into peat alternatives for the horticultural sector, but policy is moving beyond that. We are essentially facing the possibility of an outright ban on the harvesting of peat moss for horticultural product. The importation of horticultural peat is already happening in order to sustain the requirements of the horticultural sector. As such, I would be interested in hearing the witnesses' views on where we are in terms of providing peat alternatives to the sector or, in the absence of such alternatives, whether it makes sense to import that product, given my earlier points.