Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I want to begin where the witnesses previously finished, which was with regard to the nitrates directive. I agree with Ms O'Neill, who stated that ultimately the emissions are the key measure and we should begin with them. The nitrates directive was mentioned as an opportunity. As I understand it, the fourth programme is due to expire at the end of this year. Is this the moment for Ireland to stop seeking the derogation it has been seeking in respect of the nitrates directive? Do we need to move away from derogations in respect of this? It looks as though we have six or seven months to plan for a different approach.

Professor Matthews mentioned that we still have perverse incentives to use fertilisers with nitrates. There are natural sources of nitrates and there are chemical nitrates. If we were to take very strong action on chemical nitrates, they would seem to be the lower hanging of what are difficult fruit as we look to address natural nitrates.

With regard to methane, I was a little concerned that Professor Matthews mentioned the idea that it does not contribute long-term to global warming because it has an incredible impact for a period of ten to 12 years. That is how long it stays. This is the ten to 12 year period that is our focus, the period until 2030. In this context, how imperative is it that we do not increase methane and that we actively reduce it? It is eating into the window we have. Some of the longer term changes we might make on climate change may have effect in 20 or 30 years' time but right now we need to look to what we can do in the short term. In that context, what measures should there be to pause expansion? Aside from incentivising reduction, which I know is difficult, what measures should there be on pausing expansion of the herd?

The idea of incentives was mentioned. I agree that incentives are the key but I am a little concerned about the idea of the cap-and-trade scheme, as mentioned, and overall emissions. I am concerned it could end up effectively favouring larger agricultural corporations and those that are capital rich. This is the danger when we have carbon as a commodity and as an input that people can afford to have in certain contexts. It could, in fact, lead to further inequality in the farming sector. In this context, I would appreciate thoughts on how we can have incentives that are about carbon reduction or sequestration but also dovetail with some of the elements that were in the GLAS scheme on good agricultural practice and biodiversity to ensure that we do not talk in units but reward ecological care or guardianship, which I know is something many farmers care about.

Ms O'Neill mentioned the idea of more stringent reductions being made later. If we do not take action in the next five to ten years, how much will it intensify the potential shock to farming at a later point when we have to take more stringent and urgent action? There is also the impact of climate change on farming, given the fodder crisis, and the negative impacts of not acting.