Ms Bridget Murphy:

Senator Mac Lochlainn made a point regarding the focus of research. He is correct that there is a complete lack of research on land management in the uplands and forestry. As a matter of fact, in the area of forestry, we still do not have definitive research on what sequesters what better. The reason is that there is an agenda at work and this has been determined. The issue then is why carry out research when the plan has already been made. The world of agribusiness has little use for the uplands because upland farmers do not buy chemicals, spread fertilisers or use large items of machinery. We are, therefore, pretty useless from the perspective of the remit. The uplands are also the area that has been targeted historically for forestry. Poorer and more marginal land has been viewed as the area to be planted with forestry. In some senses, our future has already been figured out and this conclusion is borne out by the absence of research. This takes us back to the point we have been making in calling for a new future to be created for us. The Senator is dead right that we need extensive new research to start underpinning that.

Deputy Martin Kenny asked a question about slurry tanks filling up and asked what we should do with the slurry in such cases. We have spent €710 million under the targeted agricultural modernisation schemes, TAMS, on low slurry emissions spreading. We had 12,000 applications for these spreaders. This is a significant amount of money given that, for example, an anaerobic digester would cost approximately €500,000. This means we could have purchased 1,400 anaerobic digesters with the money spent under TAMS on low slurry emissions spreading. The question that arises, therefore, is why money is being focused on this area when alteratives are available. Perhaps we need to start challenging pre-existing solutions.

On the question about the INHFA and agriforestry, as long as there is only a five-year grant available, it will not be a solution, given the level of uptake, upkeep and management. A period of five years would only help to establish it. Historically, farmers have farmed with trees. The legacy of hedgerows and tree-lined fields bears this out. Unfortunately, the Department's policy is for fields to have a lot of green grass, with everything else having red rings around it and to be deducted from farmers' payments. We need to see a fundamental shift so as not to punish people for engaging in agriforestry and other practices unless it is paid for. I do not know whether I have been clear. People can engage in agriforestry and be paid for it, but if they themselves grow tree, they will be penalised for it. It will be deemed to be scrub and brush and deducted. I was asked to where the committee could go to see agriforestry being engaged in. Some of us are already engaging in it but being penalised for it. Where I have planted copses on my farm, they have been ringed and subtracted because they are not part of a programme. It is very difficult for farmers to take the initiative and start being more proactive when we are punished for doing so.

Deputy Thomas Pringle asked what farmers in Ireland could do to farm sustainably in the future. We have mentioned bees in the case of grain producers. I would love it if bees could start to be seen as a livestock unit. At this stage, we are being forced to farm with livestock units. Where people want to increase the use of bees, they must increase the food available to bees - trees in the spring and flowers in the summer for diverse grazing. However, when sheep are farmed, no flowers are left as the sheep will take care of them. If bees could be perceived as a livestock unit, farmers could to start to reduce their sheep numbers and increase the number of beehives by 50 to meet their livestock unit levels. Regarding the diversification of grazing regimes on a mountain, for example, a donkey and a breeding mare qualify as livestock units but a native hill pony does not. Donkeys' feet do not survive on wet mountains. They are a legacy from when turf used to be brought down from the mountains. Perhaps we might consider deeming native hill ponies as livestock units.

Deputy Jackie Cahill asked about how land abandonment could be stopped. I will add his question to Deputy Charlie McConalogue's on what we would like to see being done. Land abandonment is not just a matter of letting land go because someone cannot make enough money from it. When it comes to sheep farming on hills, there are two demographics, the first of which is ageing farmers, be it a bachelor farmer or spinster who has no one coming up behind him or her to take over the farm because there is no viability or livelihood to be made from it. The simple answer is to have livelihoods based on output. People would stay if there was an income to be made.

The second demographic is the two-job farmer. In how many careers does someone rely on a second job to allow him or her to stay in the first? Essentially, we need a second job to survive. Because of that, we are called part-time farmers when we are not. In fact, we usually have a 40-hour job and then go home and work for another 40 hours on the farm. Providing some support for farmers to have a livelihood will be important. Otherwise, they will have to find a second job. Unfortunately, this means that they will reduce the level of their participation in farming and environmental, maintenance and day-to-day work on the farm will be sacrificed.

However, like I say, the simple answer is that we need livelihood based on outputs. In response to Deputy Cahill, the smallest farmer cannot access things like TAMS. TAMS is there to allow farms to modernise. Unfortunately, with TAMS, a farmer must pay up front and claim it back. A single farmer - a single female farmer - cannot afford to pay up front because the bank will not give her a loan for that. This means that the most vulnerable farmers who need those grants the most cannot get access to them. Somehow we need to look at how we can allow those vulnerable sectors to access things like TAMS.

Regarding the silver bullet, we would certainly like to see the committee include in its report a recommendation for an end to Sitka spruce plantations and the clear-felling of them. Quite honestly, we need to start seeing hardwood, broadleaf, long-term forests. It goes back to what we were talking about in the research. If we can prove which one is sequestering better and more, let us put in the one we know will deliver the best results in the long run.

The last thing was the carbon tax. Everybody is right. The farmer does not need another tax. Once again, the farmer does not need to be punished for what is happening on their land. However, perhaps we could look at something like a carbon rating, for example, if somebody has a house with a really good energy rating, they would get a better price for that house. If a farmer is producing livestock in a manner in which their carbon rating is good, that needs to be rewarded so perhaps we could have something similar to the BER system rather than a tax. That is just a thought.