Ms Sharon Finegan:

I thank Deputy Bruton for those questions. The overall message is what evidence is showing us. We made clear points about this in the state of the environment reports.

These suggest that the impact of current practices around agriculture are having this significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions but also across other markers for the environment in Ireland, whether that be water quality, air quality or biodiversity loss. The key message from the agency in that regard is that what we need to see, at a very minimum, is full implementation of all current policies and plans, which is crucial. The focus of today's meeting is thinking about that step up to the 51% but, from the point of view of the analysis that the agency has done, it is very much around the existing measures. What we need to see there is the full measures that are identified both in the Climate Action Plan of 2019 but also in the Ag Climatise strategy, which really turned the Teagasc MACC from that sort of paper-based exercise to see what measures are needed into a suite of measures for which there was significant stakeholder engagement and engagement with the farming community about what was possible.

Another key point is that we cannot meet our overall contribution across the economy without agriculture playing its part. An important message is that it is not an either-or, and we are not going to take measures in one sector at the expense of another. The scale of the transition that is required is required across all sectors. There has to be significant step change in what is done, and agriculture is no different.

I might ask Dr. McGovern to talk about biogenic methane. What the catchment approach essentially recognises is that environmental issues are complex and interwoven. We cannot look at them in isolation and we need to look at them in that interconnected way, and come up with policies which address that fact, such as some of the measures that Mr. Treacy was outlining in the last series of questions around nitrogen use, low emissions slurry spreading and so on. Changes in those farm practices do and can realise very real benefits for improvements in regard to drinking water quality, for example, so the benefits could be derived across not just greenhouse gas emissions but those other markers as well.

In terms of the new tools and what else can be done, I will make the point again – I am sorry if I keep making it - that it is that full implementation of the additional measures in our analysis. That is the basic first principle to get us to where we need to be for 2030. A message there would be that the measures are known and have been identified to get us to 2030. We know what they are, and Mr. Treacy has just talked us through some of the numbers around those. We are not going into this challenge to deal with some of these issues in a space which is unknown and is not well understood by the farming community. As I said, the Ag Climatise strategy came about, as I understand it, following extensive stakeholder engagement, so the farming community understands what needs to be done and they are taking steps.

In terms of that step up beyond where we are, our current level of ambition is to 2030. We have to see the evidence of those solutions that have been identified in the climate action plan and those other proposals being fully implemented and verified. That is very important because they will address those ongoing unsustainable air and water emissions. Any further expansion beyond that would be difficult to sustain if we are not seeing and realising the benefits from those measures that have been identified in the MACC.

One point is around the question of the current model of subsidies and payments to farmers. The agency would previously have articulated a view that perhaps the current model of subsidies and payments to farmers does not adequately support the addressing of environmental issues. This is a point that was highlighted at European level by the recent Court of Auditors report which highlighted that measures supported by the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, have a low climate mitigation potential and that CAP does not incentivise the use of effective climate-friendly practices. Therefore, it may be appropriate that direct payments are linked to land use and management activities that focus on co-benefits and ecosystem services, and that would encourage increased ambition. If we were to do that, I think we would see a situation where we see farm incomes protected, provide that environmental protection and also foster appropriate land use.

Actions that can be developed quickly need to have that underpinning of policy education and awareness. I spoke previously about the importance of the educational piece but also of financial incentives that provide the same certainty to farmers as those that are currently supporting sectoral expansion, or have done in the past. I do not know if that fully answers the Deputy’s question. I will ask Dr. McGovern to cover the point on biogenic methane.