Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

It is quite startling to find that in one year the estimate of emissions from the land use increases by 56%. The projected increase in emissions from existing policy increased by 100%. The volatility of the calculations are scary. Do we really need to just get started in creating an incentive? As I understand it, the cost of draining this 300,000 ha versus the benefit, which we are told is 10 million tonnes, at €100 per tonne would be €1 billion? We are talking about €3,000 per year per hectare in carbon benefits by 2030 for each hectare we rewet. Now tell me an agricultural endeavour that is earning €3,000 per hectare. Where is the incentive? Why are we not incentivising farmers who have such land to take this on? The figure of €3,000 was given, and it could be 50% up or down. If we use the Teagasc figures, I presume it is actually €6,000 per hectare because it is double the 10 million. Can we not start with an incentive of €1,000 per hectare to a farmer who takes this on? If 100 ha of peatland was drained and was going to be converted, could we put in place a verification system that would oversee the impact of the investment that is made in the rewetting process and verify for that 100 ha, leaving aside the other 300,000 ha? Could we set up an incentive scheme as of today with Teagasc scientists saying to the farmer that this is their baseline and tracking what they do?

The second question I have is on to the cost. How much would it cost that farmer to rewet the 100 ha to generate this potential yield of €3,000 per hectare? From a national benefit point of view, it might avoid the transport sector having to use hydrogen in trucks that could cost it multiples times the cost in terms of abatement costs. We need to move rapidly to put in place programmes that farmers can buy into, if they have such land, because it would pay them to do it.