Mr. Thomas Duffy:

There are three questions we can address directly, with the first being mentioned in virtually every contribution. As the Deputies might be aware, we had quite a strong representation on forestry that led us to produce an afforestation policy, as distinct from a forestry policy. The loudest voices were probably from Leitrim but very quickly we discovered this was an issue spreading across all counties, including counties we had not expected. I remember reading in the Farmers' Journalthat the highest rate of afforestation last year was in Meath, which would not necessarily have been expected. Coming down to it, the issues people were having were not with farmers afforesting some of their land. It was not farmers taking parts of their land that were unproductive and making them more productive through afforestation. The representation to us was from young farmers who were feeling they were being pushed out of the land market by external forces, and in some cases with international companies purchasing land. In some cases it was national companies or people outside the community coming in to purchase land and driving up the price of what we would consider to be middling to marginal land. This was generally the lower quality land but, importantly, would still be quite productive agricultural land. Trouble was caused for people trying to get into the land market in the first place.

From that, Macra suggested that grant aid should be based on a land assessment of the crop beforehand. This would mean that for less productive land, going towards marginal land, there would be incentives but land that was highly productive in an agricultural sense would not. In areas with predominantly marginal land, farmers might see land that would be ideal grazing ground going under trees while they were stuck trying to improve very poor ground. We also believe there should have been incentives particularly aimed towards farmers, as opposed to landowners, and the controlling of foreign investment into land, which was driving land speculation.

Such actions are key to increasing the afforestation rate. As long as people view afforestation as a threat, as they commonly do in Leitrim, they will not consider it for any of their property. Macra views as a solution a large number of farmers taking a percentage of their farm and turning it into a carbon-positive activity, particularly native forestry, as opposed to Sitka spruce, which affects soil and drainage.

The other matter we can address directly is biogas and slurry storage. The question was asked as to whether there is an alternative to getting into the grid for energy production. After several field trips and research, we saw that co-production is key to the farmers in Northern Ireland. This involves the production of biogas that could enter the gas network while also producing energy. To highlight the underinvestment in Ireland, there are approximately 4,500 on-farm anaerobic digester, AD, plants in Germany. According to the Engineers Journal, Ireland has one of the lowest pay-in tariffs for electricity produced by anaerobic digestion at 13 cent to 15 cent per kW. In countries with that level of tariff, there is essentially no investment in AD. Macra recommends that AD plants should be encouraged by increasing the pay-in tariff. This goes back to the question of an auction-type system versus a feed-in tariff. We see nothing but benefits in reducing methane associated with manure management and in reducing the slurry that must be produced, because digestate is lower. This makes it a more productive fertiliser and helps to offset some of our fossil fuel emissions.

The other question relates to the utilisation of grass and the nature of our beef production. These are two separate matters and relate to how we can improve pH and phosphorous and potassium levels. This comes back to the question of a grazing infrastructure scheme under the targeted agricultural modernisation schemes, TAMS. There is no faster way to get farmers to recognise how valuable grass is to them and improve soil and productive growing conditions than by getting them out to start herds grazing grass. If a farmer cannot allow grazing until the first day in May, he or she will not focus on grass as much as sheds and slurry storage. Macra proposes that certain investments, such as farm roadways, water and fencing - fairly minor elements that could see easy and ready investment under TAMS - would be far more beneficial than investing in sheds and buildings. It would mean farmers could get out 20, 30 or 40 days sooner and have the infrastructure on the farms to avoid damage to the soil. That would increase the productivity of the grassland.