Mr. John Keane:

There is definitely an acknowledgment of it being present in the Bill, in terms of the socioeconomic impact and the importance is recognised on numerous fronts. Even in our opening statement, we recognised the importance of Ireland's largest indigenous industry to every rural community throughout the country. We all establish that and I appreciate the Deputy recognises how important it is to the fabric of rural Ireland.

In terms of meeting that transition on the biogenic methane, we realise we have a role to play. I am not denying we have a role to play but 2030 is approximately nine years away from now. We will need time to address this. We will need space, science, technology and support. We are not shying away from it, we are just saying short-term implications, whether a national herd cut or reductions in whatever that may be, can have long-lasting impacts into the future but can also have a massive impact on young farmers who have started in the past couple of years or who will start farming in the coming years. I urge people to be conscious of that kind of instrument, which if brought in can have huge ramifications. I know I am focusing on the young farmers but it can have an effect on farmers at all levels. However, it can have a major impact on the young farmers I represent.

The Deputy spoke about the sinks and sources and the recognising of that from agriculture. I touched on it a small bit when I answered Deputy Bruton's question. Our previous experience, from an accounting point of view, if we look back over years in terms of land planted under forestry and where that was accounted for in terms of the carbon accounting, not all was being attributed to agriculture. As farmers, we are willing to introduce these kinds of measures on agricultural land but previous experience shows us it needs to be accounted for farming and against farming, as opposed to being leaked out to other sectors. If we are doing something, be that in soil, forestry or hedgerow management, it should be counted for farming and agricultural activity, as opposed to being leaked out to other sectors. If we can do that, it will be hugely positive but it needs to be supported.

In terms of the biodiversity point of view and moving forward, the Deputy mentioned the results-based scheme in terms of the BRIDE project. From our point of view, if we look at the green architecture policy that Macra launched a number of weeks ago and the headline items from that in terms of eco-schemes and delivering biodiversity, our proposals are about it being complementary. It must be complementary to practices which are going on farms. We encourage results-based schemes. If we can show consumers, legislators and policymakers what we are doing on farm and the results coming from it, that can only be positive. We are definitely encouraging of that.

It must complement the farming practices we are doing. If farmers are making this impact on the environment to improve it, we must be duly supported. It must be equal and provided across all farming enterprises. Dr. Moore touched on this earlier, in terms of looking at some farmers who are perceived as being more intensive but are implementing really effective environmental measures. Those farmers will also need access to programmes to improve the biodiversity and climate and water elements of the impact of their farms. We must allow schemes to give access to all farmers and they must be complementary. It is really important in terms of results, that we can show what we are doing is having a major impact and they can deliver. I hope I have not missed any part of Deputy O'Sullivan's questions.