Mr. Paul Price:

I thank the Co-Chairman for three good questions. On metrics, we have a system whereby everything is set up towards climate action at a party level. Counties have to act. That means that we have climate targets that are based on our emissions under a GWP100 metric system. That is how things are going to stay. That is the way we should think about it because that metric even reflects for methane that if emissions are going down, then we will see that. What is important in Ireland’s action as a party to the UNFCCC is its action at that national level. We can only act on climate in the way that is reflected at the national level through UNFCCC accounting. If technologies and so forth come along to the extent that they are rolled out over a large area and are accepted, that may have an effect in the national accounting. However, until then, that is not the way things operate.

Moreover, when there were limits or policies that affected the total production, for example, when sheep numbers went down or when there was a dairy quota, farmers were smart. They worked within that limit. The efficient ones got more quota or more of the market within that limit. They were the ones who then produced more milk with less nitrogen. However, we have seen since taking up that nitrogen limit on the dairy quota that we are just making more milk with more nitrogen. That is not efficiency. If we were to make more milk with less nitrogen than we were using in 2010, that would be good, but that is not the situation. This has been the opposite of climate action, I am afraid.

The Co-Chairman is right about enteric fermentation. Ruminant enteric fermentation is the dominant emission from agriculture. That is from some sheep, but it is mostly from cattle. That has to be addressed in a big way. Addressing slurry might mean that more nitrogen is used on a pasture and, therefore, that more nitrogen ends up in the water. We therefore have to be very careful about pollution swapping. We might take action against one pollutant and potentially get more pollutant going out elsewhere. Putting a cap on the total amount of nitrogen going into the system would be an effective way to limit all pollution. However, if we let that cap off and go for a financially-based system, more nitrogen will be used because the nitrogen is cheap. Then farmers run into trouble if there is a cost increase.

On the point about Denmark, as I said, I am not at all recommending the way Denmark has gone about things. I am pointing out that Denmark also has animal-based agriculture. After 1985 in Denmark - and this happened commonly across Europe - there was a huge reduction in fertiliser use and a great increase in fertiliser efficiency. The same was true in Ireland in crop production. However, by maintaining a very high fraction of ruminants, especially if they are grass-based, unlike any other country in Europe, lots of nitrogen will be used on grass. Since 1961, we have approximately doubled the total production of grass but we are using 12 times as much nitrogen. That is not efficiency. That is degrading efficiency, even though we are producing more output. That is the trouble with the overall agrifood system in Ireland, in terms of nitrogen. Nitrogen is the essential element in protein. We are far less efficient as an agrifood system than other parts of Europe. That might not be a problem until problems arise, such as those we are now seeing with price impacts or climate shocks. We are therefore setting ourselves up to be less resilient, as well as not acting on climate.