Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. Teagasc's presentation was very comprehensive but I wish to ask a few questions on it. Can Dr. O'Mara explain what he means when he says that the setting of a national target for LULUCF land use and change forestry has been deferred to allow new scientific knowledge to emerge? It seems to me we have a pretty good idea of what is right and what is wrong in terms of land use. We know, and I think he was open about it, that Sitka spruce is clearly wrong, that spreading large quantities of fertiliser to continue growing the dairy herd is wrong, and that reducing and cutting back hedgerows is wrong. What more scientific knowledge are we waiting for to develop a land use policy that is fit for this climate and biodiversity emergency?

We know how potent methane gas is and that we must reduce it immediately and that the safest way to do that is to reduce the herd while the riskiest way to do it is to try to get genetic medication and tinker around with animal feeds. What are we waiting for as regards scientific breakthroughs? It is similar to my last question.

Given the role hedgerows could play in biodiversity and for carbon removal, does Dr. O'Mara have any views on the legislation passed some years ago that allowed for greater leeway in cutting back and removing hedgerows? Was it a mistake? Should we seek to reverse that and to protect and restore the hedgerows and the biodiversity around them while at the same time financially rewarding farmers, who are the custodians of the land, for preserving them?