Professor Gerry Boyle:

The Deputy raised many important questions. He will understand that some stray into the policy domain, which is not part of our brief, but I will nonetheless try to deal with the issues he raised. Dr. O'Mara will speak on the matters that I neglect to mention.

In our statement, we considered what the implications of the targets set in the programme for Government, in particular the 51% target, would be if they were extended to the agricultural sector in a simplistic way. Our assessment, as we state in the document, is that it would have a significantly negative impact on activity levels in the sector. We have conveyed that view to the Department and the Climate Change Advisory Council, CCAC, and we would be happy to brief any other body that is interested in this issue.

Regarding the implications, it is important that there be recognition of some of the biological features of agriculture, not least that there must be animals to produce animal products. In other sectors, technology can change and decarbonise and the sector can still engage in productive activity. That makes the sector unique relative to other sectors.

Of more importance is an issue that has been in the scientific literature for some time. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, Teagasc and the CCAC have remarked on the important scientific information that is becoming available in respect of biogenic methane produced by animals, which is the substantial part of the methane produced in Ireland, being quite a different greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It has a much shorter lifespan in the atmosphere and, therefore, has a potentially lower impact on the greenhouse gas issue or the potential for global warming. For that reason, we have been advocates for some time for a separate target for biogenic methane within the national targets, which will be determined over the coming months. That would give recognition to the uniqueness of this gas. Obviously, the level of the target is a matter for the Government.

The document before the committee and the work that we have done point to the need for the unique requirements of the sector to be taken into account in setting the national budgets. That is no different from what other countries are doing. The obvious example, of course, is New Zealand, which has a target for biogenic methane that is significantly lower than that for other greenhouse gases.

We are in complete agreement with the Deputy on carbon leakage. It makes neither economic nor environmental sense that a policy could lead to carbon leakage. All of us would be better off in a global sense if countries can produce goods in the most efficient way. It benefits consumers at the same time if those countries that are engaged in an efficient way in the export market also produce lower emissions. There is a win-win there all around. However, as we are aware, that is not the policy, at least at the moment.

I wish to amplify on the consumer approach. This can cut a number of ways. Clearly, if this is reflected in the prices consumers pay for their products, including in taxes and so forth, it could lead to consumers consuming more products that are produced in a sustainable way. Of course, it could also lead to a defensive action on the part of some countries which might want to defend their own producers against exports. That is also a possibility. Again, I agree with the broad sentiment of the desirability of having a consumption-based tax, but as I pointed out, that is not where we are at the moment.

The Deputy raised a number of other important issues. The approach depends on one's perspective. I have argued that we should start from a position where the Irish dairy and beef herds are not in opposition to each other but are interdependent. I am a little bit older than the Deputy and I can remember the situation in Ireland prior to the imposition of the dairy quota when we had far fewer suckler beef animals in the country. Subsequent to the introduction of the quota, farmers naturally looked to the alternatives and that led to an increase in sucklers from approximately 400,000 to, I believe, in excess of 1 million head by the early 1990s. The suckler herd has been declining gradually since. We all knew it would accelerate its decline post the abolition of the dairy quota in 2015. To some extent, we are experiencing a recycling of history.

As I am sure the Deputy will agree, the fundamental issue on which we are focused is to maximise the livelihoods farmers can generate, irrespective of the enterprise. That is the most important issue. There is no point in having a herd of suckler cows if farmers are not making a decent income for themselves and their families. Unfortunately, the data from the national farm survey show that only a tiny percentage of suckler farmers are making a sufficient livelihood. In most situations, were it not for the basic farm payments and other direct payments, those farmers would be making a net loss per hectare. Our job, along with the farming organisations and farmers themselves, is to try to enhance the opportunities for the creation of livelihoods.

I see nothing wrong with advocating an alternative - not to the exclusion of sucklers - of dairy-beef for example. I see nothing wrong with advocating that farmers consider contract rearing of heifers or indeed male calves as long as there is profit in it, in other words as long as those enterprises offer an alternative livelihood.

The Deputy is right, in that the carbon footprint of beef is low. That is primarily because it is an extensive system. The other side of the coin is that this also means that livelihoods are predominantly low on those farms. There is no doubt that this type of farming activity is sustainable in an environmental sense. When we discuss sustainability, though, we are careful to emphasise three critical dimensions in our annual sustainability reports, the first of which is economic. The farmer has to be able to make a living. That is at the core of sustainability. The second and third dimensions are environmental and social issues. Wrapping all of those up together and getting them to work requires a farmer to be able to change, make investments and have the education to enable him or her to identify and exploit opportunities. From a sustainability point of view, the core issue is the need to identify where farmers can generate a better living. A certain amount can be done inside the farm, and our job is to support farmers in being more efficient technically. We see a positive future for many suckler farmers, albeit not with the same level of suckler cows that are in the country currently. There will be a strong core of suckler farmers who, through their excellence in managing their herds, will be profitable. There will be other opportunities as well.

Dr. O'Mara will expand on my next point, as there are several important issues on which to focus. Regarding organic farm production, the targets in the Farm to Fork strategy would be very ambitious were they to be applied to Ireland. We must be sensible, in that we are starting from a low base of 5%. Teagasc has been involved in supporting this sector for a number of years and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has been centrally involved in the provision of grant aid and so forth. That percentage was hard won. To be realistic, it would be a considerable achievement were we to double that target over this Government's period. The Deputy may consider it to be underambitious, but ambition must also be realistic. We are prepared to state that Teagasc has a responsibility to up its game when it comes to organic farming. That will involve us recruiting more specialised research staff and developing demonstration farms in collaboration with the sector. We will do our bit to promote organic farming, even more so than we have been doing for a number of years.

The issue of peat alternatives is significant for the protected crop sector, including mushrooms. Given what has happened with the production of peat by Bord na Móna, which was a major player not only in Ireland but in the export market as well, the only feasible alternative is to consider importation. That will be the immediate challenge in the next few years. I will not make any comment on it, as that is the policy implication, but I will comment on the need for research into identifying alternatives. I am glad to see that the Department, in its recent stimulus call, has prioritised this area for future research. Importantly, Teagasc will be collaborating not just with institutions in Ireland, but with institutions internationally to find alternatives. It will take a number of years to find those alternatives, but I have no doubt that we will. I tend to be optimistic when it comes to the potential of research to find solutions. In the meantime, though, the Deputy is correct that the only alternative is to consider importation. That is the position as I understand it, but Dr. O'Mara may wish to elaborate.