Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

There is much talk about business as usual, but we all know that business as usual will get us nowhere. Farmers took to the streets in protest recently, mostly out of fear of CAP reform but also because of a fear that certain climate obligations will impact them. Having spoken to and liaised with farmers, they know that business as usual will not suffice and that change is coming. Farmers just want to ensure that change is done in a way that will allow farming to remain viable and ensure that there is a future for young farmers as well. That is fair enough. These sessions will be really helpful in trying to get to the bottom of those aspects.

I have four quick questions and they are all for Professor Matthews, simply because these are the issues he touched on. He spoke about the need to invest in measuring and monitoring greenhouse gas emissions and removals. If we are talking about severe emissions targets for the agricultural sector, do we not then have to invest in such monitoring and the scientific aspects in that regard first? I refer to finding out where scientific knowledge stands regarding the removal of greenhouse gases and nature-based solutions before imposing very severe budgets. Would it be fair to state that because the science in this context is not as advanced as it may be in areas such as energy and transport that there is an argument to be made for agriculture to be given specific treatment? I pose that as a question and not as an answer. That brings me to my second question regarding nature-based solutions and carbon capture, specifically in the form of hedgerows and mixed-species swards as opposed to monocultures. Where does science research stand on that approach now? I refer in particular to the carbon capture element. The science concerning biodiversity is very good, as Professor Matthews said. However, is there established scientific research to suggest that it is possible to bring about real carbon capture and removal in that regard?

Turning to reform of the CAP, and payments under Pillar 1, some 25% to 30% of the funding will go to eco-schemes. I am coming at this aspect from an environmental and biodiversity perspective and in that context it sounds great. It has been suggested, though, that those payments would be less than those that will be available for just undertaking production. Surely that situation should be flipped and there should be more of a payment to incentivise and encourage those eco-schemes. I would like to hear the witness's opinion on that aspect, because at the moment it is looking like there will be less of a payment for the land which will be put into eco-schemes. Finally, I would like a comment on anaerobic digestion. For whatever reason, it is something that we do not hear enough about. I visited an anaerobic digester recently in my constituency in Cork South West and such a process makes sense to me. Waste from farming, from piggeries and from dairy farms, went into that anaerobic digester and it is possible to power a small village as a result. In addition, the manure which is leftover after anaerobic digestion has fewer emissions than the unprocessed manure spread on a farm. I ask Professor Matthews for his comments in that regard.