Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are resuming the hearings on the topic of land use and maximising land potential. I welcome from the Environmental Protection Agency, Mr. Phillip O'Brien, Dr. Jonathan Derham and Dr. Eimear Cotter, and from Teagasc, Dr. Rogier Schulte, who is welcome back, and Dr. Daire Ó hUallacháin. I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee today to brief us on land use and maximising the potential of land throughout Ireland. I propose to call the representatives from the EPA first and then Teagasc.

Before we begin I bring to the attention of the witnesses that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in respect of a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Dr. Derham to make an opening statement.

Dr. Jonathan Derham:

I thank the Chairman for the invitation today. With his permission, because of the integrated nature of the activities of our colleagues in Teagasc and ourselves in the EPA, we propose to give four brief presentations and then take questions. The committee will find a degree of synergy between the presentations and it might be the logical way to proceed.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I should have made clear that I propose to get all the presentations first and then take questions.

Dr. Jonathan Derham:

We are pleased to have been invited before the committee to discuss the issues of greenhouse gas emissions, climate change and smart farming.

I will, as the Chairman mentioned, by my colleague, Mr. Phillip O'Brien, who is a research fellow in climate change issues.

By way of introduction, we circulated our EPA strategy to members. They can see from this that there are three main elements to what the EPA does and that these relate to regulation, knowledge and advocacy. What we are presenting today relates to two of those, namely, knowledge and advocacy, in the context of measuring, preparing inventories on greenhouse gas emissions, examining Ireland's performance, carrying out research and developing knowledge. In the context of advocacy, we are focusing on smart farming. This is a concept to which I will refer later. Our vision is for a clean, healthy and well-protected environment supporting a sustainable society and economy. We are of the view that this is not an unreasonable ambition.

This meeting is extremely useful coming, as it does, hot on the heels of the recently-published fifth assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, particularly that part produced by working group II, which has responsibility for assessing impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. The report in question reinforces our role in the area of knowledge, research and advocacy.

Dr. Eimear Cotter:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to come before it in order to present our work on greenhouse gas emissions. I will provide a brief introduction in respect of the EPA's work in this area and I will then refer more generally to greenhouse gas emissions in Ireland, before moving on to outlining the agency's climate-change specific vision for 2020 and the potential role of land use in this regard.

As the third slide in my PowerPoint presentation indicates, we published our strategic plan - copies of which have already been circulated to members - last year. The plan sets out the priority activities that we will undertake to deliver in the context of our mission to protect and improve the environment as a valuable asset for the people of Ireland. Within the strategy, there are nine priorities which range from developing a holistic way of managing our water right through to driving positive behavioural change at individual, business and societal levels. Two of the strategic priorities to which I refer are particularly relevant to these proceedings, the first of which relates to evidence-based decision making. In that context, we are interested in producing national greenhouse gas inventories - that is, information relating to our historical emissions - and projections for the future. The production of this data is absolutely critical. It is also a key priority for the EPA in terms of informing evidence-based decision making. The other strategic priority I wish to highlight is that which relates to maintaining a vibrant research programme. The climate change pillar of this is absolutely integral in the context of identifying climate-change specific issues within the Irish context, particularly in terms of how it is affecting the country. We also want to ensure that we can engage with the climate change debate at EU and international level.

The main sources of greenhouse gas emissions are illustrated on the doughnut chart contained in the next slide. The chart shows that 32% or our emissions come from the agriculture sector. This means that just under one third of our emissions emanate from agriculture, which makes us quite unique across the EU. Typically, emissions from agriculture across EU member states are approximately 10%. Agriculture in Ireland is, therefore, a significant source of emissions. The chart also shows that the energy sector - mainly energy generation - is responsible for 22% of our emissions. In addition, transport is responsible for 19% of our emissions. In total, agriculture, energy and transport account for just under three quarters of the country's emissions. The remainder of our emissions come from the industry and commercial, residential and waste sectors.

The next slide refers to trends in greenhouse gas emissions and shows that the profile of our emissions during the period 1990 to 2012. Again, one can see that agriculture has made a sizeable contribution - shown in green and along the middle of the chart - as has transport, the level of the emissions from which is outlined in blue. These two sectors contribute quite significantly to our emissions profile. We are of the view that emissions from both sectors will increase as we move towards 2020. In the case of the agriculture sector, this will be on the back of Food Harvest 2020 and the lifting of the milk quota in 2015. Emissions from the transport sector will increase as the economy recovers and as we begin to move ourselves and increasing numbers of goods around the country.

The next slide refers to land use, land use change and forestry. We are compiling emissions data for this sector, which is an important carbon sink. The graph shows that our land and forests absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. The sink mainly comprises the forestry sector and its impact has been increasing during the past 22 years. This is because the area of land under forestry in Ireland has increased as a result of afforestation grants. As forests mature, they have a greater impact in terms of absorbing carbon dioxide. During the Kyoto period - the five years from 2008 to 2012 - the land use, land use change and forestry sector has absorbed 16 million tonnes of CO2. This represents 5% of our emissions over the period. This is a very important sector for Ireland because it provides a vital carbon sink.

Up to now I have outlined the sources of and levels of emissions in Ireland. The EPA has a climate change specific vision for 2050, the basis of which is that we will have a carbon-neutral and carbon-resilient Ireland. This will require transformation on a number of levels in the context of how we produce energy, how we use it, how we transport ourselves, how we produce food and how we manage our consumption systems. In the context of delivering on that vision, we have identified a number of goals. I will not discuss all of these but there is one in particular on which I wish to focus. I refer to the need to ensure that positive sequestration practices are recognised, promoted and sustained. What this means is that we would like to see the development of a system or framework that will bring the agriculture and the land use sectors together. At present, agriculture is very much seen as being separate to the land use sector and they tend to operate in separate silos. We would like them to be combined and accounted for together because this would recognise the inherent link between them. As a result, activities that are taking place on the land would be connected to changes within soil carbon and carbon pools. This would provide a potential way forward and it is something we would like to see happen.

I referred earlier to the land use, land use change and forestry sector. We would like the land use sector to be considered in its entirety. As it is currently accounted for and defined under international accounting rules, it is viewed in quite narrow terms and the focus is very much on the forestry sector. As stated, we would like it to be considered in its entirety and all of the potential sinks that exist to be recognised. What we are seeking is a strategic approach to the optimisation of land use in Ireland. We must examine the potential and economic benefits of recognising ecosystem services and how they might be included in mitigation costs and benefits. We must consider all of the sinks that exist in our managed land systems and assess ways in which they might be maintained and enhanced. We must also examine the accounting rules, which are currently quite narrow in scope, and ensure that they are as broad as we require. We must also ensure that we realise the full potential of our land use sectors.

The holistic approach whereby agriculture and land use would be considered together under one system would recognise that these two sectors are very closely linked. As stated, greenhouse gas emissions from the agriculture sector are projected to increase and they already account for just under one third of our overall emissions. We are already obliged to meet demanding EU targets in this area and these are likely to become even more onerous. In that context, we have a land use sector which could possibly offer access to a very large potential sink. I refer here not only to what we are already accounting for, but also to, as EPA-funded research shows, the even larger sink that exists. In 2050, there could be a potential net sink of 9 million tonnes. Grasslands have the potential of increasing this figure even further. The sink is not captured in our current accounting model and we would like it to be broadened. We must work at international level in order to facilitate this development.

The EPA has allocated a significant level of resources in respect of these issues. In the context of our climate change research programme, I have highlighted one research project, the Irish soil information system, ISIS, to which the representatives from Teagasc will refer in greater detail during their presentation. This project shows the collaborate effort between two State agencies and it involves some extremely important research in respect of the classification of Irish soils and their properties. The investment we have made in this regard is going to give rise to a very high return. We would like resources to continue to be allocated in respect of this project into the future.

In the context of next steps, it is vital that the research be supported because it will play a critically important role in helping us to manage our resources - in this instance, our land use resource - effectively. We will be obliged to engage at international level in order to shape the accounting rules and ensure that they evolve in a manner which will be of benefit to Ireland.

It is not only an issue at international level. We must also recognise at national level that land use is one way to achieve climate change objectives. It is about more than forestry. We must consider it in a broader context. I hand over now to Dr. Jonathan Derham who will talk us through other ways to mitigate climate change with particular reference to sustainable food production.

Dr. Jonathan Derham:

My presentation is on resource efficiency. A copy of it should be included in the circulated handout. I will discuss an initiative called "smart farming", but to set things up members can see from my first slide that we face a perfect storm on a worldwide basis of diminishing resources, increasing population and increasing demand for industrial output. It is beyond the capacity of the planet to provide the resources we need to live in the way we do in the developed world. Resource efficiency is about adopting a model of living better while using less. It is a well-recognised policy in Europe, the OECD and UN as a means of identifying the impossible balance of prosperity, progress, development and living within the boundaries of the planet as given to us.
The EPA's model for resource efficiency addresses energy efficiency, clean technology, which is making products more cleanly and with less harmful substances, water conservation, eco-design, which involves designing better products that last longer, are easier to dismantle at end of life and are repairable with replacement parts, and behavioural change, which is a big part of it. We are trying to adjust people's consumption and production behaviours. On the energy efficiency side, we work hand in hand with our colleagues in the SEAI to deliver energy efficiency services into the State and industry.
The next slide features examples of a number of behavioural change activities. Members can see that smart farming is one of a suite of programmes we offer. Members are probably well aware of "stop food waste", which is advertised on radio and television. We throw away 30% of the food we produce. Part of what we must do to be more resource efficient in agricultural production is to stop people wasting the food that is grown and delivered to them. If one piled up all the food waste produced in Ireland annually, it would make a column 150 m high with a base the size of the Aviva stadium pitch at Lansdowne Road. It is a lot of food waste.
The smart farming initiative is a collaboration between the IFA and the EPA. Our normal approach to behavioural change activities in different sectors is to work with a sectoral champion or leader. The IFA came forward and has taken up the baton. The IFA is very keen to drive the matter itself and we are really a supporting agency. It is being delivered by the IFA and represents a successful start to the programme. It is a voluntary programme which is not locked in to any grant aid, obligation or regulatory compliance issue. It is a voluntary, on-farm resource efficiency and cost saving programme. Why did we do it? A gap was identified in our national resource efficiency programme. We have activities in the hospitality sector, industrial manufacturing, the social pillar, homes and communities but did not have a particular activity in the farming sector. That was the gap. In our national recovery plan, farming and food production are a key sector. We felt we had to address it to address the national recovery plan. Food harvest resource efficiency is a strong theme running through that. The cost of inputs to Irish farms was €5.5 billion in 2013. If we only manage a modest 1% efficiency gain, it saves the farming sector €55 million. There are clear gains.
Members will see from slide 7 on page 4 that it is not just the EPA and the IFA that are involved. The programme was put together, led by the IFA, in collaboration with UCD's school of agriculture, the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, Teagasc, the Fertilizer Association of Ireland, the National Federation of Group Water Schemes, the Irish Grasslands Association and the Farm Tractor and Machinery Trade Association. There are seven major themes in the smart farming programme: soil fertility, grassland, machinery, time management, inputs, energy and feed. The approach includes top tips on how farm enterprises can save money by doing simple things better for little to no investment. It increases the efficiency and production of farms and leads to a double dividend. It generates a financial dividend for farms while reducing the overall environmental burden and resources input. An example is soil fertility. Members will see from the handout that this is about lime and the proper pH of soil. My colleagues from Teagasc are probably more expert than me in this regard but I note that low soil pH reduces the availability of nutrients. This is about getting the right soil tests to improve the use of fertiliser. The yield is €20 per acre in savings on fertiliser in getting the pH balance right. It is a question of linking the environmental gain with the clear economic gain.
Members can see the sheets on farm machinery. We have found that many small farms are over-mechanised with tractors and machinery that are far too powerful for the size of the farm unit. One of the challenges we have in addressing this as a national policy issue is determining how to match machinery size to the scale of the farm. Simple things can be done on machinery such as addressing the waste of fuel associated with low tyre pressure and travelling to distant and isolated blocks of land. Dr. Schulte has more comments on those sorts of issues.
Members can see, if they go through the sheets, that there are useful and straightforward tips for farm enterprises to reduce their environmental burden while saving money. This is all available on the web as a free resource regardless of whether one is a member of the IFA. Any farmer can access the material. We held a very well-attended national conference last year to launch the initiative accompanied by an excellent 12 page supplement in the Irish Farmers' Journal. The initial phase involved resource efficiency assessments or cost saving studies on five candidate farms in autumn 2013. We saved an average of €5,000 per farm, a not insignificant sum for these small farm enterprises for no or low investment. These are young, engaged and highly motivated farmers who believed they were doing as good a job as they could up to that point. There is clearly plenty of scope across the sector. It is very positive. In 2014, we are looking at undertaking 30 on-farm assessments with volunteer farms. These are clustered around farm discussion groups operated by the IFA. This is about diffusion of skills through discussion groups and regional seminars. We do not need to work hard to find candidate farmers as they are queuing up to get involved. There is high interest and uptake.
The benefits for farmers are financial. It is clear income and revenue. The initiative also underpins and supports the ambitions of Food Harvest 2020 and Origin Green with low resource input production and sustainable farming enterprises. It benefits our overall economy and environment and reduces inventories.

This will again lead in to some of Dr. Schulte's comments.

The final slide states that smart farming fits into a sustainable consumption and production cycle. It is part of an overall national cycle that we have. It is an essential part of primary production but it does not exist on its own. It cannot solve the whole problem of delivering a sustainable consumption and production in society.

Dr. Rogier Schulte:

I am contributing on behalf of my colleague, Mr. Daire Ó hUallacháin, a research officer in the area of agri-ecology and I bring apologies from Dr. Rachel Creamer and Dr. Gary Lanigan, who, unfortunately, had prior engagements today. I thank the committee for inviting us to elaborate on our initial presentation last February.
I will begin with one slide from that presentation. We spoke about the emerging demands on land use going into the future, contrasting demands from an agronomic perspective as specified in the food harvest strategy and from an environmental perspective as specified in many different environmental policy frameworks. We were invited to elaborate on three subjects - the greenhouse gas policy framework, agri-ecology and soils.
Greenhouse gases have been prominent in public debate this week on foot of the publication of the IPCC report and when we talk about public debate, I start with what we call the Irish paradox when it comes to agriculture and greenhouses gases because we often hear two contrasting statements. On the one hand, we hear that agriculture in Ireland accounts for a large proportion, 32%, of national emissions while, on the other, we hear that agriculture has one of the lowest carbon footprints in the world. Both statements are true at the same time. A large proportion of emissions come from agriculture. The average in Europe is 10% whereas it is 32% in Ireland. Part of that can be explained by the fact that we do not have a large heavy industrial sector nor do we have a large population of cattle. This means that in Europe agriculture emissions are often masked by industrial and residential emissions but this is not the case in Ireland.
Second, we rely on ruminant farming in Ireland - cattle, dairy cows and sheep - which is largely a reflection of our soils and climate. It is simply what we are good at. The next slide contains data from the Commission which compare the carbon footprint of a litre of milk for every member state. The green circle is Ireland and shows that it has the lowest carbon footprint for milk in the EU. When we look at beef, we are again in a relatively good starting position. We have the joint fifth lowest carbon footprint. That is a good place to start. However, there is no room for complacency.
The next slide features screen grabs from the Internet of some of our main competitors. Each has proactive sustainability programmes both at national level and at processor level. For example, last week we were in FrieslandCampina in the Netherlands, Europe's largest dairy processor and it is making a serious effort to reduce the carbon footprint of its milk. In other words, we have to find ways to continue to reduce our footprint to maintain our position. Teagasc has a greenhouse gas working group where we pool together all the different expertise from our research centres and advisory services and over the past number of years we have produced three significant reports, two of which I have circulated. In 2012 we published our vision for 2020 and our research and development strategy. That report is in front of members. Last year we published our long-term vision for 2050 and that is the colourful report in front of members. If they prefer not to read long reports, we wrote a two page summary in our research magazine, TResearch, which we have also circulated.
I will focus on our 2020 vision. We produced a marginal abatement cost curve. This is a normal tool in the wider sense of the economy to assess what the options are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are one of the first in the world to use it for agriculture. The curve contains a number of bars, which represent options for agriculture. The width of each bar tells us how much impact each measure will have on reducing emissions whereas the vertical axis tells us how much it would cost. Bars that are below the axis pay for themselves and are cost beneficial whereas those above the axis cost money. Of all the options we assessed, we broke them into three groups, which we colour coded. The green measures relate to efficient farming, for example, an increased economic breeding index, higher genetic merit for cows, extending the grazing season and nitrogen efficiency. These measures, as we calculated them, turned out to be cost beneficial. The yellow measures relate to land use change and they are largely the production of biofuel and bioenergy. We see two things. First, they are cost neutral, which means there is no financial impediment or incentive for farmers to take them up. Second, under the current Kyoto accounting framework any carbon credits associated with biofuels and bioenergy are not credited to the agriculture sector. Instead, they end up in the power generation or transport sectors. The blue measures relate to technological intervention, for example, anaerobic digestion of pig slurry or slurry spreading equipment, and these turned out to be quite expensive.
The headline conclusion of our 2020 vision is that it is possible to achieve the food harvest strategy targets while, at the same time, keeping greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture constant. Part of that is good news because if that were to materialise, that would represent a decoupling of production from emissions meaning we could increase production while keeping emissions constant. That would mean a further reduction in our carbon footprint through efficiency alone. However, the other half of the story is this will not happen by itself overnight and I will come to that.
The theory is that increased efficiency will reduce carbon emissions but does this work in practice? This is where we look at the Teagasc national farm survey. This is a proper statistical survey, which has been operating for decades through which we collect economic indicators on more than 1,000 farms across the country on an annual basis. As of last year, for the first time, we are also collecting environmental indicators. I will highlight one graph from the report which shows the carbon footprints of the dairy farms in our survey. We split them into three groups - the one third of dairy farms that are most profitable, one third that have average profitability and the one third that are least profitable. The most profitable farms also have the lowest carbon footprint and vice versa.
The question is how will we make this happen. We teamed up with Bord Bia and we asked ourselves how we can maximise the adoption of these green measures. This is when we produced the carbon navigator, which is a decision support tool for farmers that helps them to identify which of the measures is most appropriate for their unique farm.

It uses very practical language. We do not talk about nitrous oxide emissions or methane but about grazing season length, nitrogen fertiliser rates, etc.

Third, we put a lot of emphasis on the distance to target rather than on the carbon footprint. I will elaborate on that distinction because it is important. The slides show two hypothetical farms, one in Wexford and one in Donegal. Each has a carbon footprint associated with its produce. There is a good chance that the carbon footprint of the farm in Donegal would be higher, simply reflecting the wetter soils, which result in greater nitrous oxide emissions. The lower productivity of the land also increases the carbon footprint. When we talk about individual farms, the carbon footprint is not the most important metric, however. This is because each farm has what we call the biophysically minimum footprint. There are and will always be some greenhouse gases associated with food production; that is the minimum footprint. The important question concerns the distance to target. How much has the farmer reduced his or her footprint towards the minimum? As in the example, it is entirely possible that a farmer in Donegal will have progressed more towards the target than a farmer in Wexford. Again, I emphasise that the example is hypothetical.

The carbon navigator, which is probably clearer in the slides shown to the members, is a very simple software tool. On the left of the slide, members will see the green measures, from our marginal abatement cost curve. The top example, on extending the grazing season, shows the farmer's current performance based on existing data in existing databases. The right-hand side shows that the farmer, together with his adviser, sets for next year a target, in days, for the extension of the grazing season. The farm is then benchmarked against the top performance within his or her county where the soil type is the same. The reduction in greenhouse gas emissions arising from this change in practice is shown in the slides. Most important, the financial benefit that would accrue is shown. The carbon navigator will be rolled out in all the discussion groups on the beef and dairy side in Teagasc in 2014.

Our EPA colleagues have already referred to the fact that the United Nations and European Commission have agreed that after the expiry of Kyoto accounting mechanism that runs until 2020, a new one will be required. In this regard, I have to hand an extract from the European Commission's latest communication to the European Parliament. Basically, it is inviting member states to come up with ideas or suggestions specifically on how to treat agriculture differently in the future. We are working very closely with our colleagues in the EPA, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the National Economic and Social Council to produce a coherent Irish proposal.

We already mentioned soils in the context of greenhouse gas emissions. On the last occasion, I announced that we would finalise the Irish soil information system. I am very pleased to be able to announce today that we have done so. The members are the first to see this, and the viewer is evident on their screens. It will be operational on the Internet. This occurs on foot of a very large programme funded by the EPA and co-funded and operated by Teagasc. We completed the 1:250,000 soil map of Ireland and have put all the information, including the databases, into the public domain and onto the Internet. The study is based on an extensive field-sampling campaign using over 10,000 augur points and over 200 full soil-profile descriptions.

I will outline what the soil map can and cannot be used for. It is important to do so in today's context. Any 1:250,000 soil map will be based on associations. Associations are groupings of soil types that often occur together in a landscape. These soil types can be quite different. A slide shows glacial and brown soils that occur together in a group in a particular landscape. There can be two soil types in an association, or there can be three or more. What does this mean in terms of the use of the soil map? We are not able to drop a pin on the soil map and pinpoint soil types A or B because, as the animation available to members shows, we do not know which of the soil types we have actually hit with the pin. We can use the map to click on a polygon that tells us which soil types occur in the area in question. This means that when our advisers visit our client farmers, instead of bringing a list of 200 soil types, they will know they can expect to find one or more from a list of three or four. All the information in the databases will be available to them. Of course, the holy grail is to come up with soil-specific management strategies.

The soil map can also be used to regional and national levels, for example, in respect of river basin district management plans, the tier-3 Kyoto accounting of greenhouse gas emissions and habitats. This is a good moment to hand over to my colleague, Dr. Ó hUallacháin.

Dr. Daire Ó hUallacháin:

Táim buíoch as an deis seo a bheith agam. I will speak a little about agro-ecology. Dr. Schulte, in a previous presentation, mentioned the various demands on land use in Ireland, one of which concerns agro-ecology and the conservation of habitats and species, or the conservation of biodiversity. Approximately 10% of the terrestrial land of Ireland is designated as a special area of conservation under the habitats directive. Approximately 6% is designated as a special protection area under the birds directive. There is some overlap between the two designations. Therefore, in total, approximately 13% of the terrestrial area of Ireland is designated under Natura 2000. This is probably the crème de la crèmeof our biodiversity, species and habitats, and it is afforded the highest conservation priority under European legislation. However, it is important to conserve and enhance other aspects of our biodiversity.
There are habitats and species eligible under the habitats and birds directives but which are not yet designated. Approximately 50% of eligible habitats are designated under Natura 2000. How should we go about conserving the other 50%? There are also species and habitats that are rare or threatened on a national scale. There is high-nature-value farmland. This is a new term that has been bandied out for the past 20 years or so. It is important from its biodiversity prospective. I refer to extensive farmland with highly diverse species and habitats. There are also more common farmland habitats, such as hedgerows, ponds, streams and watercourse margins. There is also a semi-improved grassland and improved agriculture land and forestry. It is important that we aim to conserve not only the crème de la crèmeat the top of the list, namely, the habitats designated under Natura 2000, but also the biodiversity associated with the large proportion of land comprising agricultural land and forestry. It is important that we conserve the biodiversity associated with those habitats because they feature widely throughout the country.
Consider the addressing of the conservation status of these habitats. We can target through two methods, namely, critical conservation, focusing primarily on the top three or four on the list, and more strategic conservation measures. It is a question of using critical or strategic conservation strategies to target the various habitats. There will be different effects in respect of each habitat and species.
The next slide shows differences in regard to how we engage in targeting and the impacts of critical and strategic conservation. For example, there is a difference in regard to the cost-effectiveness of measures. Critical conservation measures will be more costly because they are specific. We can consider more general cost-effective measures for strategic conservation. Any measure that we select must be supported by landowners. There will be an impact on the productivity of landowners as critical conservation measures are likely to have a greater impact on landowners than more strategic measures.
For critical conservation, there is a need to target species and habitats, in addition to specific locations for these species and habitats. A good example concerns the freshwater pearl mussel. We have approximately 27 catchments designated under the special area of conservation, SAC. It is unlikely that we can have conservation measures to target all these catchments.

There will be a report saying that it is better to target where one is most like to receive or gain the most rewards in terms of conservation strategy. By targeting the top eight or so catchments, we are most likely to see the conservation strategy make an impact.

For strategic conservation there is less of a need for such targeting. There are also differences in designation and policies to address habitats and species under critical conservation and those under strategic conservation. There are also differences in the funding available and funding streams that can be used. For example, for critical conservation there is Pillar 2 under the Common Agricultural Policy. The new proposed GLAS scheme, which is a new agri-environment scheme, could be seen as one area for targeting funding towards critical conservation. For strategic conservation there are also opportunities under Pillars 1 and 2. Under CAP, for example, there is the greening of CAP or the greening measures which could be seen as more strategic conservation strategies.

There will also be an impact on landowners if we target critical and strategic conservation. For example, in the case of flagship species such as the corncrake, which has declined for a number of different reasons, one of its main threats has been the change in agricultural practices and the switch from traditional hay meadows to silage production. Let us consider the conservation of the species, as we are obliged to do under the birds directive. There is a requirement, where these species occur, to switch back towards more traditional measures, and these will have an impact on production.

Another species is the freshwater pearl mussel. There may be historic reasons for its decline but one of its main threats is sediment. Conservation of the species would impact on the landowner as he or she would have to implement mitigation measures such as buffer strips or sediment traps.

Species rich grassland has declined massively over the past 50 or 60 years and one of its main threats has been abandonment. Therefore, if we want to conserve such habitats, we need farmers to actively manage and farm the land.

From a strategic conservation point of view, these matters are less resource affected. For example, hydro conservation benefits biodiversity and agriculture because it provides shading, shelter and drainage. Let me give the example of species associated with riparian margins, which benefit the margin and the biodiversity associated with the watercourse and also intercept nutrients and sediment, thus preventing them from getting into watercourses. There are also opportunities to target strategic conservation strategies to more marginal areas of land. For example, a farmer can target areas that are less productive, thus benefiting biodiversity and ensuring a reduced cost for agriculture. The last slide provides a summary and heralds the end of the Teagasc presentation.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank both delegations for their comprehensive presentations which dovetail quite a lot. Before calling other speakers, I wish to ask Dr. Ó hUallacháin a question on his last comment regarding the carbon calculations. He said that there are win-win options available. How do we get the credit and have it act as part of the overall carbon calculation? I hope he does not mind me saying so but to me that element of his presentation seemed unfinished. I ask him to consider my question while the members ask their questions.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have only one simple question. It was said that agriculture produces 33% of emissions. Does that mean greenhouse gases? Does that include nitric oxide, methane and carbon dioxide?

Perhaps the delegations can explain the following example to someone like me. If one grows a tree it will take in carbon, but if one grows other plants, like grass and so on, they will not take in carbon. When an animal eats the plants the gas will be expelled again. How does constantly putting out a lot of greenhouse gases not deplete the carbon amount? Where is it all coming from? There is a permanent carbon cycle. Is there an accounting issue? Have I missed the point that was made about the greenhouse gas count? It has been said that one type of plant takes carbon in and holds it, but when one kills the tree and burns it, one lets out what was brought in, although it is kind of neutral by then. However, other plants take in carbon, animals feed on them and then the animals release gases and so on both at the front and the back. The carbon count seems to take account of what comes out but not what comes in and I am curious to hear how it is calculated.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must leave in a moment to vote. Does the Chairman mind if I ask a simple question?

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator can go ahead.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman. A lot of information has been given and I ask the delegations to forgive us because it will take us a moment to get our heads around it.
With regard to the 32% rate for agriculture, what is the reduced target we must aim for? Is 32% okay if we change other things? How might the GLAS scheme help us to reach our target? GLAS was mentioned but it did not get a big mention. Perhaps that is just the way the delegation has given us particular bits of information and not other bits. How important is GLAS to the activities of Teagasc?
Mention was made of the single overarching need to get people to change their behaviour. We have seen the EUsafefood operate the Operation Transformation scheme and the EPA mentioned smart farming. Can the GLAS proposals change our situation?

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the delegation to answer the Senator's questions.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman. I must leave because I have to vote.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I refer, in particular, to her first couple of questions, after which I will call other members.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I suggest the delegation answer the second question first.

Dr. Jonathan Derham:

We will answer the second question first and it will be a double-barrel answer as we will answer it between us. I refer to the Senator's questions on whether we must get down to 32% and if there is an overall national emissions target.

Dr. Eimear Cotter:

Agriculture is responsible for 32% of our emissions but the EU target is a 20% reduction in national emissions and agriculture and transport are the two big sectors in that target. It is an overall 20% target by 2020 which has not been apportioned across sectors and individual sectoral targets have not been set. It is 12% growth up to 2020 for the agriculture sector. Projections have shown that the emissions will grow by 12% but overall we need a 20% reduction, which is a very large gap. Agriculture will have a very big part to play in helping us to achieve that target. I hope I have answered the first part of the Senator's questions.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. I thank Dr. Cotter. I also asked whether GLAS or the GLAS proposals will go some way towards improving the situation.

Dr. Rogier Schulte:

I will answer that part of the question. GLAS by its very name refers to low carbon agriculture. To the best of my understanding, the GLAS proposals have not been finalised and are still being developed. We have made a submission to the public consultation process conducted by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. One of the things we proposed in our submission, for example, is to use the carbon navigator as one of the GLAS methods to promote the measures, raise awareness among farmers that carbon efficiency equals economic efficiency and start the debate. Using the carbon navigator, we can spring the green measures, as we refer to them, that will reduce the carbon footprint. The scheme is being developed as we speak but the thinking is there.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I interpret that to mean not yet but maybe. I appreciate the answers supplied.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The delegations can now answer Deputy Ó Cuív's questions.

Dr. Rogier Schulte:

My colleague, Dr. Cotter, will start to answer the Deputy's questions.

Dr. Eimear Cotter:

The Deputy asked at the beginning of his questions which agricultural emissions we referred to. I can tell him that methane and nitric oxide emissions come primarily from the agricultural sector. A small amount of CO2 comes from combustion which is produced by machinery and so on, but predominantly it is methane and nitric oxide. My Teagasc colleagues will answer the second part of the Deputy's question.

Dr. Rogier Schulte:

The Deputy asked a pertinent question about the carbon cycle. He is right that agriculture does both things. Agriculture takes up carbon and sequesters it in soils, plants and trees. It also emits carbon.

There are a number of reasons that it is not a zero sum game. One of the dominant reasons is that our ruminants converge one form of carbon into another. They converge what was carbon dioxide taken out of the atmosphere into methane. The problem is that methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. We often hear about carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas but methane is much more powerful. Nitrous oxide is more powerful again in terms of the amount of heat it traps. This is why it is not a zero sum game. In the framework that we and our EPA colleagues refer to for the post-2020 period, we are aiming to at least bring these emissions from agriculture which are currently counted together with the credits in terms of the carbon uptake so that at least the positives and negatives are accounted for in the same framework. It is unlikely to ever become a zero sum game.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the ratio in respect of the pure greenhouse effect of one molecule of methane versus one molecule of carbon dioxide?

Dr. Rogier Schulte:

They change from year to year. I will defer to our EPA colleagues.

Dr. Eimear Cotter:

It is 21 times more warming than CO2 for methane and 310 times more warming for nitrous oxide.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

310 times?

Dr. Eimear Cotter:

Yes. As Dr. Schulte says, this changes and they are about to change the warming potential soon in our accounting.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Upwards or downwards?

Dr. Eimear Cotter:

Both. Methane will be more warming and nitrous oxide will come down ever so slightly.

Dr. Rogier Schulte:

One interesting detail - my EPA colleagues can correct me if I am incorrect - is that a distinction is made at UNFCCC or IPCC level between the global warming potential of animal methane and fossil methane. They subtract one from that number of 21 in the case of animal methane because of that one molecule of CO2 taken from the atmosphere.

Mr. Phillip O'Brien:

This is in the most recent IPCC working group 1 document produced in September. It provided the revisions for the greenhouse warming potentials for these gases. That is the first time it made this distinction. This is new information coming into the policy framework. A scientific distinction is being made between methane coming out of fossil fuels and bio-genic sources. This is a very interesting development and should certainly be considered at a policy level.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Deputy Ferris have a question?

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all the witnesses for their presentations. There is a lot of information in them. My head is spinning trying to figure out which question I want to ask. The factors that come across from all the contributions are education, efficiency, the joined-up approach by the various agencies and, in particular, working with farming organisations because that is where many of our problems come from. The smart farming, whole farm approach to soil fertility plays a huge role. When one comes from that type of background and travels around the country, particularly the more marginal and weaker areas, one can see that things could be more efficient from a production perspective and in terms of what we are trying to achieve on the carbon issue. If this efficiency and education were available to many of the weaker and poorer sections of the farming community, it could help to address the problem in some way.

I welcome the fact that 30 farmers will be included in an educational discussion. When will this be rolled out, how widespread will it be and where will the concentration be? If the witnesses are to achieve what they want to achieve, the concentration must be within sectors of the farming community that are most vulnerable and most in need.

The witnesses talk about critical and strategic conservation. When they talk about critical conservation, they are talking about land that is probably sterilised for that to happen with the loss of income to the farmer involved. There are no more relevant areas than parts of west Limerick and north west Cork where whole areas have been sterilised because of the hen harrier. In these areas, people entered into an agreement, did not have the contract and have no income. We must make it attractive through a support mechanism.

I think about 7% of forestry is managed by Coillte while forestry takes up 11% of land nationally. Obviously, that must be increased to meet targets. This goes back to supports. How do we get that extra take up? The witnesses take about efficiency in respect of food waste. This comes back to education for the consumer and producer.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Deering indicated that he wished to speak.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for giving us a lot of very detailed information at the same time. As we approach 2020, a year we have serious targets for, is the bus slow in taking off as regards information and education regarding greenhouse gas emissions? Sixty years is a very short time span. There have been significant efforts to try to reach the Harvest 2020 targets. Are we going to miss them? What are the implications of missing those targets?

Martin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also thank the witnesses for the varied and very detailed presentations we received. We must go away and take a bit of time to digest all of the information they have given us. It strikes me that agriculture in Ireland is paying a price because of the lack of industrialisation across the rest of the country. There is probably a fear that agriculture will be inadvertently and disproportionately hit compared to other countries even though it is quite efficient because it contributes 33% and because of the 20% reduction on a national level that needs to happen. That is probably more of a comment than a question.

It might not be politically correct to say this but given our size, we will put ourselves to great measures to try to make ourselves as efficient as possible when much larger countries with much larger populations and other less developed parts of the world are doing untold damage to the environment. Our little impact will not have any impact on the larger scale. How would the witnesses respond to this statement? What would they say to the ordinary farmer who is going to see the impact of further changes and measures? It is important to reiterate that Irish farmers strongly embraced the likes of REPS and the agri-environment options scheme, AEOS, and will continue to do so. Farmer are custodians of the land and have always taken measures in that regard. I am not saying they want to go out and wreck it but I can see the argument. When it is sent back to one, it is very hard to argue against us bringing in all these measures that will have no impact on other parts of the country that are slower to sign up to the measures.

Dr. Jonathan Derham:

The questions will run between us. Deputy Ferris is quite right. Education is a founding element of this resource efficiency model. We have certainly proved that the joined-up approach has been very successful across State agencies and sectoral organisations. Clearly, it is the way to go. At the root of all of this, behavioural change is a sociological issue and probably in some cases a psychological issue for individuals and groups.

Why do groups have difficulty with change? The following elements should be considered, namely, the economic element and the cost of change. Age is a factor when individual farmers reach the age when they think about retiring they do not want to have to reinvent themselves. The scale of the farm is another element, with very small scale farms having low-cost effectiveness. Habits and culture also dictate people's behaviour. It is a complex sociological problem.
We in the State agencies have found that telling people what they should do is not terribly successful. The most effective model has been the farm-based discussion groups in which farmers talk to farmers. There is a direct exchange of experience between them. I am not from a farming background but through my professional life I have a great deal of interaction with the farming sector and we are very pleased that the IFA is coming forward with the farm discussion group model. Members will see at the top of page 7 of the slides, the indicative farm discussion groups are spread across the country. There will be some fine tweaking based on farm types but they will look across the tillage, beef and dairy farms. There will be a range of different farm types and different farm enterprise types within the discussion groups. We will continue this process in the following years, money permitting. The EPA is putting funding of €100,000 in cash into this year's discussion groups and about another €70,000 in terms of people and human resources. That is a modest sum but the impact is significant.
I will comment very quickly on the 2020 targets. My colleagues might add further to them. I do not think there will be a pro rata reduction in agriculture. These are national targets and it is for the State to decide on the most successful policy arrangement between the different sectors. In some sectors we might be able to achieve greater reductions that do not result in the same pro ratareduction in the farming sector. I do not believe it will be so straightforward that there will be a disproportionate cut in the agricultural sector.

Dr. Eimear Cotter:

I will address what we can do in the forestry sector to increase our carbon sinks at national level.
Our message is that more carbon sinks exist than just forestry. We would like the land use sector to be looked at in its entirety. At present the accounting framework is very fixed and biased toward forests. We think there is potential in looking at the land use sector in its entirety.
What would need to be done to make that happen? We need to recognise the potential of the land use sector at national level. We have been very focused on a conversation on afforestation, but there needs to be national recognition of the role of the wider sector. We would have to engage at an international level and try to influence change in the accounting rules. That will take a great deal of work across State agencies and Departments over a long period.
Agriculture and transport are the two key sectors for our 2020 targets, accounting for 75% of emissions in 2020. Our projections show us exceeding our annual limits in 2016 so it will be very challenging. Dr. Jonathan Derhamhas stated we do not have sectoral targets and the national target will be split up and divvied out between the sectors. We are awaiting the publication of the climate change Bill which will set us on the path for 2020 and out to 2050.
We have to consider the environmental impacts of the agricultural sector. We would not view working for better environmental conditions for the farmer as mutually exclusive. Dr. Derham referred to smart farming, this is about resource efficiency, by using resources on the land more productively, there are savings and win wins for the farmer and equally environmental benefits.
We sell our products to export markets by telling the story of environmentally compatible agricultural production and that green, sustainable produce is interwoven with Irish agriculture. We have to create a compelling message for the markets.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have a fixed amount of land, which is decreasing as good agricultural land is being built on. The storms also added to the loss of land.

From the figures for output, it seems that by increasing cattle number, one increases methane gas. If the ratio is 21:1, I would be interested to hear how the EPA proposes to deal with the dilemma with Harvest 2020. Do different types of cattle produce different levels of methane gas? Is there a genetic issue with different breeds? What affects the output of methane gas from cattle? Is there anything we can do to produce the same amount of beef yet generate less methane? It would be a major boon if one could do that. If it were possible to do that, should it become part of the genomic scheme and part of the measure when doing DNA testing?

If we are to put more and more cattle on the land and try to offset the methane gas by forestry or other sinks, what is the ratio per hectare, allowing that one is putting CO2 in and generating methane gas when one has cattle. Is it a big disadvantage that so much of our agriculture is based on animal production rather than on tillage?

Has the EPA a measure of whether the normal 80:20 rule that seems to apply to everything in life applies to greenhouse gases so that 80% of methane and greenhouse gases is generated by 20% of the farmers? If one concentrated one's efforts on reducing their output, it would have a disproportionate effect and one would not need to get to the very extensive farmers who in the greater scheme of things are probably generating very small amounts. Is it a question of having to focus on those in intensive farming and to work with them on the factors that could mitigate the output of greenhouse gases? Am I correct that 20% of farmers produce 80% of the output? In other words of the 120,000 farmers, do the top 30,000 farmers produce 80% of the net greenhouse gases?

Dr. Rogier Schulte:

I will address Deputy Ó Cuív's questions in the order they were raised. There is some confusion in the public debate about the impact of Food Harvest 2020 on total bovine numbers. The results from our economic modelling unit, the Frappery Island model, which projects these animal numbers forward up to 2020, suggest that the number of dairy cows will increase in response to the phasing out of the EU milk quota. However, as these additional dairy cows produce additional calves, the model output suggests a contraction of the suckler cow herd. The change in total bovine numbers, dairy cows plus suckler cows, will be very small. It will be a change in the composition of the national herd rather than a growth of the national herd. Sometimes in the public domain we see questions on what will we do with the 50% additional slurry, the increase in the amount of slurry will be in single digits.

That puts the challenge in context.

There are small differences between breeds in terms of methane output. Interestingly, there are greater differences between breeds in terms of milk and meat output. If we are considering efficiency in terms of CO2 per litre of milk or kilogram of meat, there is much to gain from breeding. As is evident from our marginal abatement cost curve, one of the largest potential gains is in the economic breeding index, EBI, which is a composite indicator of the genetic merit of a dairy cow. This includes not only output indicators, but also efficiency indicators and so on.

We are disadvantaged because of our type of farming. The fact that we rely on ruminant farming poses a major challenge to our greenhouse gas balance sheet. Having said that, the debate in the Irish context is different from the debate in the continental context. In Europe, farmers theoretically have a choice between tillage and grassland farming. In Ireland, we must take food security into account. If we do not have ruminants on our grass, what are we going to do with it? This important question is now being taken into account by the European Commission in the post-2020 framework on greenhouse gases. For the first time, the term "food security" appears in the Commission document under the agriculture heading in the context of greenhouse gases. The fact that we export between 80% and 90% of our produce has opened the door at the Commission to ensure that any new policy or accounting framework recognises this contribution to food security. How this will be worked out in the details is open to negotiation.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I may be wrong, but did a UN report last week criticise Food Harvest 2020 for being an export-based model that took no account of international food security?

Mr. Phillip O'Brien:

No, that was not my reading of last week's document. Working group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, was examining adaptations and impacts. It pointed to the fact that global food security was threatened, particularly by how climate change would impact on the ability of developing countries to produce food for themselves and others.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was not critical of our Food Harvest 2020.

Mr. Phillip O'Brien:

It did not mention Ireland in that context. That is more a matter for working group III, which is being convened in Berlin at the moment and deals with mitigation. Its discussion document will not specify particular countries. It refers to consumption-based accounting and production-based accounting. Ireland takes account of all of the methane we produce because we produce the food whereas other people eat it. Under consumption-based accounting, that methane would be accounted for in the country of consumption. There are pros and cons in the discussion, but the document that will be published next week will not show a major differentiation. The Chairman must also bear in mind that we consume a high level of embedded emissions in other products within our economy, for example, cars.

Dr. Daire Ó hUallacháin:

I will address an outstanding question asked by Deputy Ferris. He suggested that critical conservation would have an impact on the landowner, leading to the possibility of sterilising land. Ireland's biodiversity and variety of habitats are predominantly the result of centuries of agriculture. To maintain them, farmers must actively farm land. The Deputy was right that, to achieve this, farmers must be incentivised. It is encouraging that the proposed green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, has prioritised habitats and species of high conservational concern. Hopefully, this will incentivise farmers to manage habitats actively.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If public good is counted in terms of carbon sinks, recreational amenities, etc., one is entitled to be rewarded for that work. We learned from our meetings with groups from the Burren that the best people to do this work are the ones who are always there, namely, the farmers and landowners.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to make a supplementary point. We have not seen GLAS, but the agri-environment options scheme, AEOS, was task driven. Is Dr. Ó hUallacháin saying that a high-conservation status area requires the right level of farming to be maintained, that being, what was done traditionally and no more or less? In places like the Burren, farming went from one extreme to the other, for example, over-intensification on the hills in the west and under-intensification to the point that everyone was concerned about land abandonment, etc. Prior to the incentives, though, generations of farmers farmed that land in a sustainable way because they knew what they were about.

Has Teagasc suggested that GLAS should focus on the output instead of the task? Judging by the little information we have on GLAS, it seems to be task driven, in that one must maintain X number of walls and so on. It could instead be concerned with telling farmers with high-status farms to maintain them in very good environmental order and that, if this meant doing nothing more than farming land sensibly, they would then get money.

Dr. Daire Ó hUallacháin:

We have not seen GLAS. We are working from its proposed recommendations. A new element in GLAS that was not included in previous schemes is the active prioritisation of certain habitats and species. Natura 2000 sites, which account for approximately 14% of the species in question, are deemed to be included among the prioritised sites.

Some of the problem may lie in the fact that GLAS targets habitats and species of conservational concern and that farmers can only be rewarded for income forgone. Undoubtedly, there is a need for further discussion on this matter. If active measures are not incorporated, how will farmers be incentivised to farm as they did heretofore?

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Teagasc accepts the question.

Dr. Daire Ó hUallacháin:

In the context that we have not seen the finalised GLAS.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Neither have I. However, Teagasc accepts that this issue has not been resolved and could become a concern depending on how GLAS is designed.

Dr. Daire Ó hUallacháin:

Without having seen GLAS, it would be difficult to respond.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What has been published refers to priority actions, for example, stone walls and God knows what else. Therefore, GLAS seems to be action driven as opposed to requiring a composite. To a certain extent, I have always believed that we should revert to the way farming was done up to the 1950s or even the 1970s, which was sustainable. Farmers figured out how the land worked and had plenty of labourers, which allowed them to keep their stone walls in order, their farms tidy, etc.- some of them at any rate. Thirty years ago, we had the best quality of farmer for the sensitive landscapes in question where there is limited capacity and both overgrazing and undergrazing lead to serious trouble. An incredible balance is necessary. This is not achieved through positive action, but farming knowledge, yet there appears to be no reward for that. Indeed, there can be none under an action-driven plan.

Dr. Rogier Schulte:

Deputy Ó Cuív has made an excellent point. As we understand the new Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, scheme, Pillar 2 payments can only be used to offset income forgone. This is a European rule rather than a national one. This issue does not only relate to biodiversity, though, as we have encountered the same issue with the carbon navigator that we presented. That all of the navigator's measures are cost effective and cost beneficial means that we cannot include it under Pillar 2. However, some of the other issues to which the Deputy referred, such as education, knowledge transfer and their cost, can be considered under Pillar 2. It is a question of designing the approach in a smart way.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think Pillar 2 could have discussion groups on areas of national constraints, which will be better defined by the soil test analyses.

I expect it will be used as part of the review of those later in the year. There are also smaller but specific output-based environmental schemes. There are other aspects that might be able to compensate. The discussion groups are very simple and very effective, and represent a very efficient transmission of information.

I thank the witnesses and all the presentations are very good. Ms Cotter made a very relevant point that goes to the heart of it. It is about getting recognition of total land use. That has been the driving force behind what the committee has been trying to do. Ultimately we want to endorse a policy which would form part of an Irish argument for a total land-use framework that an international accounting system would recognise. Regardless of whether the Government takes it to a commission on agriculture or a commission on climate change in Europe in the first instance the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and Marine would have pulled all together. We will hear submissions from representatives of UCD and Bord Na Móna to conclude our hearings. We then hope to go to Europe with a preliminary document and make an argument, as a committee, on the basis of what is being done. The various aspects to it from food security to efficiency of production and everything else would be part of our argument or defence depending on one's point of view.

Deputy Eamon Ó Cuív:

Is it possible for the witnesses to provide us with a "Ladybird" guide? We have been told that 7% of land use is forestry and every year that sequestrates a certain number of tonnes of CO2. Approximately 4% of or land is used for tillage crops and another percentage is used for animals. All the figures the witnesses gave are very useful. However, if we want a total land-use approach we need to know the pluses and minuses, and the approximate number of hectares for each land use. We could then have a ready reckoner of where we are going and it would give us the total picture. We do not want pages, but want it to be concise.

Dr. Jonathan Derham:

We will do that.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Last week the representatives of Coillte advised us that the country's forest estate sequestrates approximately 200 million tonnes of CO2, but that other countries in Europe have a higher percentage of forestry than we have. On the other hand, since 1990 our rate of afforestation has been much greater than any other country because most of them have either established or not bothered. As we have, we need to get that factored into it. The post-1990 figure is probably the most relevant one.

I again thank the witnesses for giving us a very useful and constructive presentation.