Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses and appreciate them giving of their time. While I am not a member of this committee, I represent a rural constituency. I have a huge interest in this matter and have a background in CAP negotiations over the years. I came here today to listen and learn. I got a lot of good information in the earlier sessions. While I have received some information here today, as somebody who wants to listen and to learn, I am not getting enough back. I am not blaming any of the witnesses as individuals. They are here representing their Departments and Ministers. They are experts in their own right but, in a way, I am the connection between them and the farmers I will meet tomorrow or the next day.

Ms Love mentioned that the Department has laid out pathways and solutions and provided detail. Yes, there have been some of this but there is no real clarity. Much of this revolves around using less fertiliser, slaughtering early and using multispecies swards. They are all positive actions but what I have not heard today, and which I heard from speakers in earlier sessions, was about market incentives. We heard about what happened in California where they managed to achieve a 30% decrease in methane emissions. The committee was told that market incentives were put in place. We know that farmers are businesspeople - that is what they do - and would respond to that. I hear a lot of negative stuff in the media and what is wrong, although this has nothing to do with today's discussion. What I do not hear are the positive steps that will engage farmers, so that when I go to a meeting they will sit down and ask me what the details are and what they can do. Farmers are people, the same as the rest of us. They have families. They see the world burning around them. They are not stupid people. They know they can make a contribution. I am hearing far too much about cutting this and cutting that, but not about what we can do. That is just a general comment and if anyone wants to comment on that, that is fine.

I have a number of specific questions. Mr. Kierans said that we are measuring the decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. To be precise on this - I am looking for clarity here - are we measuring CO2 equivalents and not CO2 warming equivalents of each of the gasses, nitric oxide, carbon dioxide and methane. If not, as Deputy Fitzmaurice said earlier, what we are really looking at are default figures. While the witnesses are not responsible for that personally, I am not asking them to defend it and I am asking them because farmers will ask me this question.

We have also been told that we need to establish a protocol to measure emissions and sequestration on individual farms, and that is being planned. If I meet some farmers in Drumkeeran tomorrow night, can I say to them that this will be done and that if they sit down, plan and work to sequester the greatest amount of CO2 they can to limit their methane emissions, in a year or two, those efforts will be taken into account?

Can I tell them that in order that they can plan for it?

I do not see anything wrong with ambition in the context of targets. We need to be ambitious, but I agree with Senator Daly that we need to be realistic because, otherwise, it is pie in the sky and people will just ignore it. The last thing we want is farmers ignoring what is happening. The witnesses may or may not be able to answer my question because it is partly political but I will leave it with them. We know it is going to be somewhere between 22% and 30% so what is the need today, tomorrow or next week to fix that as a definite target? Why can we not leave flexibility there while saying we want to be ambitious? Why can we not leave it flexible in order that farmers do not feel that what is being asked of them will not be achievable?

We have listed a number of actions. To be fair to the witnesses, they have done that and have given us some detail. I have great belief that innovations will come on stream, but they may not do so in time. That is the big issue. If it does not happen in time, farmers will be left wondering whether we will be looking at a cut in the herd. I heard somebody mention a retirement scheme, which is basically the same thing. That is the danger when you set your target at a point that may be achieved but not within the timeframe in which it is expected to be achieved. If you allow flexibility, you get people to work with you.