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

I remind members and those in the Public Gallery to make sure their mobile phones are completely turned off. Today, we are discussing climate change issues specific to the agriculture, food and marine sectors. I welcome before the committee today Mr. Joe Condon and Ms Bridget Murphy from the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association, INHFA. From Meat Industry Ireland, MII, we have Mr. Philip Carroll and Mr. Cormac Healy. We also have Mr. Clive Carter and Mr. Pat Cleary from the Irish Grain Growers Association. I thank them for coming before us today to discuss these issues. I would also like to thank them for their submissions, which were circulated to members beforehand.

Before we begin, I wish to 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 on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They 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 any 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.

We will hear first from Meat Industry Ireland, then the Irish Grain Growers Association followed by the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association. I understand Mr. Carter is going to make the opening statement. We will take that first, then the other two statements, one after another, and then questions from the members. I call Mr. Carter.

Mr. Philip Carroll:

I thank the committee for the invitation to speak on climate change and giving Meat Industry Ireland the opportunity to address members this afternoon and to have an exchange of views. As the Chairman has said, I am accompanied by Mr. Cormac Healy, senior director of Meat Industry Ireland, MII. The committee has already received a detailed submission from MII setting out our thoughts on climate change in the context of our agriculture sector but also highlighting the significant contribution that the meat industry makes to the Irish economy and to the rural economy in particular, as well as the opportunities for growth in meat exports that we believe can be achieved in a sustainable manner as part of the wider agrifood targets and objectives set out in Food Wise 2025.

MII is the business association in IBEC that represents the meat processing sector. The meat sector, which includes beef, pigmeat, sheepmeat and poultry from farm through to processing and export is one of the most important indigenous industries in the national economy. In 2017, it generated €3.95 billion in exports and it provides direct employment to approximately 15,000 people, as well as indirect jobs in associated service industries. In particular, the sector supports more than 120,000 farmers throughout Ireland. It has a major impact on regional economy spend and rural economic activity. In many of the rural areas where processing facilities operate, the meat plant is often the largest local employer. Rural towns such as Bunclody, Edenderry, Bandon, Athleague or Shercock, among many others, do not benefit significantly from foreign direct investment and therefore are heavily dependent on these meat processing facilities and the employment and services demand generated by them.

Meat production and processing has a long tradition in Ireland and it is the most important indigenous sector when account is taken not only of output value but also of its regional spread, as well as the number of farmers involved in livestock rearing for meat production. The sector has made significant progress towards achieving Harvest 2020 goals and the potential exists to further scale up the industry to generate increased exports, rural economic activity and job creation in the regions in the coming years. Export values have grown by 60% over the past five years and Irish meat is exported to more than 50 countries worldwide. Under Food Wise 2025, the meat sector has ambitious plans to sustainably grow annual exports by an additional €1 billion.

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

There is some interference from a phone.

Mr. Philip Carroll:

I apologise. A significant proportion of this growth is linked to expansion in the dairy sector, which is already well under way. These growth plans exist in the context of global demand for protein arising from forecasted population growth, expanding middle class communities, increased urbanisation and shifting dietary preferences. The growth in global food demand and Ireland’s potential to contribute significantly to global food security is accompanied by the competing challenge of climate change. By 2050, the global population is expected to reach 9.8 billion and the planet will need to produce 70% more food while conserving available land, water and energy resources and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Whether through Ireland’s grass-based production systems for beef and lamb or our superior production efficiencies in pig and poultry, Ireland should be seen as a source of sustainable food supply to global markets. While recognising that we need to continue to work to reduce the environmental impact of our agrifood production systems, Irish meat production has strong environmental credentials and is among the lowest in greenhouse gas intensity per kilogram of output in Europe and globally. Curtailing meat production in regions of the world that are eco-efficient producers, allowing for expansion in less environmentally efficient areas, simply leads to carbon leakage and does little for the global challenge of climate change. Meat Industry Ireland members fully accept the challenge of climate change and the need for increased action to minimise the impact of meat production on natural resources. We also accept the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to protect our natural environment for future generations.

Agriculture has always been a critical component of the Irish economy and given the lack of heavy industry within Ireland, it represents a significant portion of the overall emissions from the economy, which accounted for 19.5 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2016.

That represents 32% of total greenhouse gas emissions in the economy. In contrast, agriculture in the UK, with more than double our emissions level, only represents 8% of its overall emissions. Nonetheless, the meat sector continues to work collaboratively with the State and its agencies to minimise this impact and to reduce emissions, while at the same time sustainably growing our food exports. Although the sector has expanded between 1990 and 2016, it should be noted that emissions from the sector reduced by 3.5% during this period. In the same period, overall national emission levels rose by 10.4%. This serves to highlight the successful efforts being made by the agrifood sector to reduce emissions and grow sustainably.

While accepting the serious nature of the climate change challenge, it is important to stress that progress is being made by the agrifood sector. Important initiatives aimed at further reducing agriculture's impact on the environment are already under way. However, we must realise that the mitigation potential of agriculture and food production is limited compared with other sectors of the economy, as agriculture emissions arise largely from biological processes. The livestock and meat sector will continue to focus on sustainable intensification, driving increased efficiency and improved productivity, better grassland management and reduced inputs per unit of output. Ireland's grass-based systems give us a unique advantage in the production of beef and lamb. It should also be recognised that the Irish pig and poultry systems are among the most efficient in Europe and are making significant strides in emissions reduction.

A key initiative on the beef side has been the introduction of the beef data and genomics programme, which is targeting improvement in key productivity parameters such as age at slaughter, calving interval, age at first calving and so forth in order to lower the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions and to deliver dividends in the economic performance of beef enterprises for farmers. While the scheme has only been in place for a short number of years, ICBF data already demonstrate the progress made on these productivity criteria and the benefits accruing in terms of reduced greenhouse gas emissions. In terms of carbon footprint Ireland is one of the most efficient beef producers in Europe and work is actively under way to make further improvements in this area. The Bord Bia quality assurance schemes now include a significant carbon footprint element which accumulates a range of information used to generate a carbon footprint for individual farms. This information can be used to help producers identify areas within the farm where efficiencies can be made. Ultimately these efficiencies, once adopted, have positive impacts on farm level carbon footprint and on the bottom line for farmers in terms of profitability.

Meat processors have been involved in a range of initiatives, at both production and processing levels, aimed at improving efficiencies and animal performance, delivering sustainable intensification and minimising emissions from the sector. These initiatives include using demonstration farms to highlight to the wider farming community the benefits of particular types of production systems and improved management practices aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving margin at farm level. MII also provides support for the Teagasc BETTER Farm Beef Programme, whereby processors have provided financial support and expertise to these groups. A key element in these better farms is a focus on grassland management, breeding and production methods, all of which are important to maximise efficiency. In addition to processor involvement in the BETTER Farm Beef Programme, some individual processors have established their own demonstration and research farms to develop production and finishing systems either for suckler beef or dairy beef which deliver what the market is looking for while maximising best practice in breeding, feeding, grassland management and animal health for dissemination to farmers generally. I was glad the committee visited one of these processor farms in the latter part of last year. The invitation to visit another one is open to the committee at any time it might wish to avail of it during its busy schedule. We would be happy to arrange it if that would be helpful.

MII is working closely with Teagasc and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to establish a soil carbon sequestration project in order to demonstrate the potential of the soil carbon sink in Irish grassland and look at best practice to optimise carbon sequestration. Soil carbon sequestration is an important element of sustainable agricultural practices.

It will help to reduce the net greenhouse gas emissions at farm level and will help to increase soil productivity, increase water retention and reduce flood water run-off. The aim of the project is to develop greenhouse gas reduction blueprints for different farm types and foster greater integration between research, policy, producers and processors to maximise on-the-ground efforts to maximise carbon sequestration.

Healthy animals will ultimately perform and thrive better than animals which are sub-optimal. A key aspect of emissions is age at slaughter. By reducing this over time, the sector can make significant improvements in terms of emissions from the animal sector.

Animal Health Ireland plays a crucial role in maintaining and improving the national herd health status in Ireland. Since 2015, Meat Industry Ireland beef processing members have been providing significant financial support to Animal Health Ireland to run a specific programme, Beef HealthCheck. This programme aims to improve the health of the cattle herd by providing postmortem feedback to producers on lungs and livers harvested from the cattle. Detailed reports are provided to farmers allowing them, together with their veterinary practitioner, to identify appropriate interventions and practices which can help to improve animal health within their herd.

Together with Enterprise Ireland, Meat Industry Ireland has established the meat technology centre last year as an industry-led initiative which will build a strategic research and innovation base in beef and sheepmeat processing. Among the six pillars of research within the centre, there is a specific focus on genomics, with close co-operation between the centre, Teagasc and the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation. This is aimed at improving the genetic make-up of the national beef herd. The centre has already shown the potential for genetics to reduce age at slaughter, which is a key factor in the control of emissions. Another work stream within Meat Technology Ireland is meat safety, incorporating packaging with the primary aim of developing new processes and products to maximise the shelf life of Irish beef and lamb and, ultimately, to reduce waste. This is most relevant when considering that approximately one third of all food produced for human consumption is wasted.

Within the pig meat sector, processors are working closely with Teagasc and University College Dublin to support various projects aimed at improving the health of the national pig herd, reducing the need for antibiotic usage at various stages of the pig life cycle and, ultimately, improving the efficiency of the national pig herd, thereby reducing emissions from the sector.

Meat processors are participating in Origin Green in which measurable sustainability targets are set against a baseline for continuous improvement. A detailed sustainability plan is developed by each company and independently audited each year to ensure companies are making progress towards reaching their goals.

As we continue to improve the sustainability and carbon footprint of our operations across the beef sector, we believe that continued support is needed for the beef data and genomics programme to maximise its coverage of the national suckler herd, to ensure it delivers on the real potential of breeding technology and to improve productivity and reduce emissions per kilogram of output. Major progress can be made on calving interval, age at first calving and overall livestock productivity. All of these will greatly enhance environmental and economic sustainability.

A relatively small reduction in the average age of slaughter would have significant benefits in terms of reduced emissions from the national herd. Further productivity in the beef sector is possible through the use of sexed semen. This has the potential to optimise dairy replacement heifer numbers while also enabling more usage of beef sires in the dairy herd offspring, thereby improving overall productivity.

The pig industry stakeholder group chaired by the Department in 2016 recommended that a substantial investment programme be introduced for pig enterprises. As productivity in the pig sector continues to increase, additional housing capacity is needed to optimise pig health and welfare. Improving housing standards will allow for increased energy efficiency by modernising lighting, ventilation, insulation and flooring.

Ultimately, this would have a positive impact on pig health and reduce emissions per kilogram of meat output.

A fuller range of initiatives is open to the sector. With appropriate support at Government level, collectively it could make further significant inroads towards minimising the impact of the agrifood sector on climate change. These include the installation of renewable energy facilities as well as anaerobic digestion at farm and processing level. Enhanced farm advisory services aimed at improving overall productivity, and therefore reduced emissions intensity, is a key requirement. We need to promote the use of the carbon navigator to identify potential emissions reductions and financial gains through better management practices. Knowledge transfer will play an important role in maximising on-farm efficiencies both for land and grass management, encouraging farmers to adapt appropriate management practices.

Post-2020, it is clear the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, will have a strong environmental focus. Properly structured, this can help agriculture contribute to climate change mitigation. However, to be effective, the future CAP must be fully resourced financially and needs to be focused on supporting active producers. The proposed direction of CAP post-2020, where the overall principles or objectives will be set at EU level but member states will draw up their own CAP strategic plan for implementation, could assist in determining which measures best suit local conditions. The Pillar 2 rural development programme must maintain a strong budget. It covers support for important schemes such as the beef genomics, on-farm investments through the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, and green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS. All of these schemes contribute greatly to improved environmental performance of the sector.

I outlined a range of measures in which Meat Industry Ireland member companies are already engaged. As an industry with an extensive and leading role in the agrifood business and the largest net exporter of beef in the EU, we recognise and accept fully we must and will do more to ensure the production and processing of meat products will continue to be conducted in the most sustainable manner possible. We know a significant increase in meat production cannot be considered in isolation from its environmental impact. That is why we are already committed to the range of actions outlined here. It is why we continue to explore other avenues where, together with Government and key stakeholders, we can intensify work towards an improved and sustainable environment for all.

Our credentials as the fifth most carbon efficient beef producer in Europe demonstrates we are on the right course better than anything. We do, though, have further to travel. We fully subscribe to the Food Wise 2025 objective that, as the food sector continues to develop and grow, development must be undertaken within a framework of sustainability. Equally, it must be acknowledged that the mitigation potential of agriculture and food production is limited compared to other economic sectors. Because agriculture is so strategic to the Irish economy and does not have the heavy industry counterweight other countries have, its greenhouse gas emissions are statistically disproportionately higher than countries where agriculture emissions are nominally much higher but represent a much lower proportion of total emissions. Nonetheless, agriculture emissions have reduced by 3.5% in the period up to 2016 compared to a rise of 10.4% in national emissions. That tells its own story.

Ireland has a number of natural advantages, including a temperate climate favouring a grass-based livestock production system that is far more efficient than intensive feed systems practised elsewhere. Curtailing output here while output increases in less carbon efficient areas of the world would be contrary to the global objective of mitigating climate change. It is the wrong solution to a global problem. I have not touched on trade agreements, in particular Mercosur. We might return to that during the course of our conversation later. Overall, as an industry, MII will continue to grow the sector responsibly and sustainably.

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

I thank Mr. Carroll for an important presentation. I call Mr. Carter from the Irish Grain Growers Association.

Mr. Clive Carter:

I thank the committee for the invitation.

The aim of this presentation is to highlight the positive contribution of the Irish arable sector to the Irish economy, ecology, climate change and environment and recognising the current and future potential of the sector, having a positive stimulus to the environment and also reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This document will discuss key areas of the industry and propose more mitigation measures to be implemented to provide a long-term sustainable arable sector contributing positively to the overall carbon footprint of Irish agriculture in an environmentally positive way, while continuing to make a significant input to the Irish economy.

The role of the arable sector was virtually ignored in Food Harvest 2020 and Food Wise 2025. These omissions in Food Harvest 2020 prompted the launch of the Tillage Sector Development Plan 2012, yet the tillage sector was burdened with most of the mandatory greening requirements and production altering changes in the most recent review of CAP, such as the three crop rule, ecological focus areas, EFAs, buffer strips, etc. The arable sector should not be targeted and used as a future scapegoat for climate change, which happened previously, to allow for a further increase in beef and dairy, as happened in the past. The challenge for all in our country is to reduce carbon emissions from food production, energy use, transport and manufacturing while continuing to maintain fully traceable indigenous food output, retaining employment while maintaining a positive environmental impact.

The EPA published a report in 2016, which stated that agriculture accounted for 33% of all carbon emissions in Ireland, while transport was 19.8% and energy was 19.7%. Emissions from cattle alone accounted for 14% of carbon emission. This figure is not a true reflection of Irish agricultural emissions, as Ireland is not as industrialised as other countries in western Europe and agriculture accounts for a higher proportion of industry. Ireland is likely to miss its targets for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for 2020, according to the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland. This will result in a cost to the State in the region of €120 million for every 1% above the mandatory figures agreed in the Paris Climate Change Agreement, COP21. Some are predicting that we could be 20% above our target by 2020. The time to act is now and not bury our heads. There needs to be a clear policy roadmap, helping to deliver a reduction in carbon emissions and any potential fines, alongside creating sustainable renewable energy, jobs, food, revenue and adding positively to the overall wealth of the country, its environmental upkeep and diversity for years to come.

Irish arable farming can tackle greenhouse gas emissions head on, while maintaining output of food, employment along with broader environmental and economic benefits for the country through increased output; reduction in food miles and added value; multi-use crops for food and energy, such as cereals, proteins, sugar beet and oilseed rape; better land management, including more organic fertiliser and precision agricultural technology; improved greening, environmental and ecological benefits; collaboration of farmers with other sectors; and the traceability and indigenous supply.

A key area where Irish arable farming has an advantage over imported food produce is the reduction of food miles. Our grains are produced locally, giving local employment, whereas imported grain do not. Imported grain has crossed thousands of miles via rail, road, air and sea to arrive at a port and then to be transported by rail or road to a processing plant, a few miles away from a local farm that is perfectly able to produce a similar if not better grain. We currently import €450 million worth of sugar and Bord Bia has said that approximately 60% of the feed and meal fed to Irish cows, beef, pigs, etc., is imported of which 70% is from genetically modified organism, GMO, origin.

Due to our traceability standards, encouragement is needed to produce premium markets and crops such as malt barley and gluten free oats. These crops, grown locally, add value to the economy and provide extra jobs and revenue to the country. One hectare of malt barley can produce over €100,000 in revenue to the country, based on revenue figures. It is important that these crops are protected and encouraged.

As stated, Ireland is going to miss its targets for renewable energy and will face a likely fine of millions. This money could be better spent developing a sector that has the potential to bring down emissions, create jobs and create a high value domestic export driven product. We would like to see research into this area to quantify the potential long-term benefits of tillage farming for carbon sequestration, managing waste, and positive environmental impact.

According to Bord Bia, the beverage industry exports in 2016 were €1.5 billion of which €500 million was whiskey. Whiskey exports are set to triple by 2030.

Beverage exports could well pass out beef exports by that time. Currently, only 1% of land in the country is used to grow malt barley. What if rather than growing carbon positive crops to mitigate against the growing cow numbers, they could be used to mitigate the carbon emissions in the production of beer or whiskey? Just a thought, but imagine the marketing power of a GM free, fully Irish, carbon neutral beer or whiskey? However, farmers would have to be paid accordingly for such a product.

Recently, the Citizens' Assembly recommended a carbon tax on agriculture. If a farmer is deemed to be carbon positive, should they get a tax credit using the potential of carbon positive crops?

The production of protein crops, such as beans, peas and lupins, lead to several positive resource and environmental effects as well as being a very high protein crop for animal feed. Proteins also have a nitrogen fixing capacity reducing the need for synthetic nitrogen fertiliser. Reduction in disease levels and improvement in soil properties, such as organic matter and structure, cause an increase in subsequent cereal crop and reduction in carbon dioxide emissions due to reduction in fertiliser use. A protein crop when growing releases five to seven times less greenhouse gas emissions per unit compared to some other crops. Across Europe there is a big interest in producing home grown GM free proteins, particularly for animal feed, and the production of Irish proteins mitigates against both carbon emissions and protein.

Recently, it was realised that the EU needs to reduce its 95% deficiency in soya as it imports 95% of its soya requirements. This is a massive volume that could be produced locally. The current protein payment should be maintained and expanded on. It has been a success story of the previous few years. Millers that previously found it difficult to include beans in rations are now investing in technology and methods to handle them, realising their potential. We should be aiming to be exporting food grade beans and peas in the coming years, plus there is a big demand globally for proteins.

Food production should not suffer in order to produce renewable energy. There is scope to produce energy from by-products and first generation biofuels where the by-product from that process can then be used for animal feed, such as wheat and sugar beet for ethanol. Oilseed rape is a multi-use crop which can be used for food, that is, cooking oil; energy, that is, biofuel; and animal feed. Oilseed rape also contributes positively to the bee population during its flowering period, contributing to the local ecology. Sugar beet is also a multi-use crop for food, that is, sugar; and, energy, that is, ethanol and anaerobic digestion, which releases biogas. The beet pulp from the process is a high protein animal feed. Sugar beet is also one of the best filters of greenhouse gas emissions during its long growing season, which could be up to a year, in some cases.

We listed transport in our introduction as being the second highest in carbon emissions, with 19.8%, behind agriculture. Agriculture can help reduce our transport emissions by developing a strategic policy on renewable energy as stated already. Biofuel from first generation crops and on-farm anaerobic digestion from slurry, food waste and organic manures, etc., can produce biogas which can also be used in our transport sector. On-farm anaerobic digestion plants and research and investment is required as is a specific rural development policy like the policy in the UK and Northern Ireland.

Investment in technology has consistently found solutions to problems, particularly in agriculture. From mechanisation, plant breeding and chemistry, we have seen yields rise dramatically over the last few decades helping to feed an expanding global population. More recent developments in global positioning system, GPS, and precision farming have been able to reduce input use by up to 10% in some cases. Urea is a cheap source of nitrogen for farmers, but can be less efficient in very dry conditions. The development of protected urea enables farmers to capitalise on a cheaper source of nitrogen and prevents losses to the environment. Having submitted this statement, I found out that according to Teagasc figures, protected urea is more stable in soil, lowers ammonia emissions by 84% and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 73%. A few farmers are trialling chemical nitrogen, applied in a liquid form, on growing crops for better foliage uptake.

The arable sector carried the can on most changes in the most recent CAP, such as the two and three crop rule; ecological focus areas, EFAs; buffer strips; and cover crops. While some of the measures can have a positive impact on farms, the enforcement rather than encouragement of these measures has resulted in many smaller producers opting out of the arable sector and, ironically, going into mono crop production - grass.

Arable land is a haven for birds and wildlife during the hungry winter months alongside being a habitat for smaller mammals. Most bird watchers are keen for an increase in arable area. Commercial beekeepers are establishing working relationships with tillage farmers which are beneficial to both parties and the environment. A vibrant tillage sector which has a diversified cropping plan including beans, peas, oilseed rape and cover crops is key to keeping and expanding the bee populations. This is encouraged by varying times of flowering of different crops prolonging the production season and creating food reserves for bees over the winter months. Mono-cropped grass, even with white clover in the mix, does not provide food for bees. The wild bird cover measure in GLAS has been beneficial in providing diversity in intensively managed grassland but we would like to see that broadened to include a bee and insect cover as an alternative for GLAS members on 100% grassland and to include wild flowers or later flowering crops. The greening measures adopted in the previous CAP reform have been implemented very well for most of tillage farms. Under the new CAP negotiations and simplification, we would encourage no changes to the greening requirements for tillage farmers, apart from a greater flexibility on the ground for growers and a ring-fenced and higher budget for farmers for adopting these measures. The entire tillage area should be ring-fenced and encouraged to expand by investment in new technologies, markets and crops.

We propose the following recommendations for implementation: a linked Irish food and renewable energy roadmap; a focus on the positive environmental aspects of Irish arable farming; an aim to increase the arable area and the variety of crops; the encouragement rather than enforcement of environmental measures; the prevention of further penalisation and scapegoating of the Irish arable sector; a review of REFIT to encourage local community energy production; the development of end use markets for renewables; no reduction in the biofuel inclusion rate across Europe; the recognition of quality assurance and traceability; co-operation between farmers, industry and Government on food and energy matters; and a rural development plan that encourages long-term jobs, transport and energy for communities.

Many Irish arable farmers are afraid of what is coming down the line for them in the future regarding COP21 and the next CAP review. No other agriculture sector has seen as many enforced measures recently and every effort must be made to review that policy and encourage small and medium growers to produce sustainably and efficiently which will benefit the entire environment of Ireland. Arable farmers are connected to the environment and the soil, they depend on them for their living. We are constantly trying to improve both for the future. The acres devoted to tillage are on a serious downhill slide, 14% fewer acres in the last five years alone, and 5.75% in the last year, one third of what it used to be before 1945. The first port of call for this joint Oireachtas committee in relation to climate change is to stop the slide of the area under tillage. Tillage farming is at worst carbon neutral and most likely carbon positive. The more acres devoted to tillage the less of a problem we are creating as regards climate change. We have solutions to climate change, the question is, are our Governments going to invest in them?

While watching RTÉ news last night, the main topic was the critical volume of plastics in the ocean. We may not have all the solutions for this but one might be the growing of more hemp. It can be used to reduce and replace plastics in certain circumstances, alongside with bioplastics that are produced from sugar beet. Crops have potentials in not just the food industry but also in the pharmaceutical and energy industries.

Recently, at the national tillage conference in Kilkenny in January, a Teagasc chief economist acknowledged that the arable sector was number one for ticking all of the boxes in terms of the environment, climate change and ecology. We are way ahead of all other sectors. We are currently second in economic aspects but number one in environmental terms. This must be quantified and acknowledged. I thank the committee.

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

Thank you, Mr. Carter, for a very detailed presentation. We move on now to the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association. I wish to acknowledge that the association was due to appear before our committee last week with the other farm organisations but because of change of times, it did not suit so we welcome the association today.

Ms Bridget Murphy:

I am from the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association. My colleague, Mr. Joe Condon, will also make a presentation.

The Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association is a farming organisation representing farmers producing quality livestock on the most demanding terrain and in the most harsh weather conditions on this island. The evidence supporting this is the supplying of tens of thousands of lambs as stores into factories and the setting up of producer groups in targeting this specialist sector through protected geographical indicators, PGI, statuses. We supply of thousands of weanlings to market each year and in doing so support more than 25 livestock mart co-ops and public and private services. We are the bread and butter for our towns and villages, what we earn is spent in the local community. Overall sheep numbers in Ireland have been growing in recent years. The annual census in December 2016 showed that there were 36,000 sheep flocks in Ireland and 3.9 million sheep. Mountain and mountain cross sheep accounted for 44% of this figure. There are two major problems in hill sheep farming. One is economic and the other is environmental.

Global and local factors place us at a time of considerable uncertainty and change, however one thing is clear. Economies and people cannot survive without an environment to support them. Our need, as farmers and rural communities, for economic and social well-being is dependent on the well-being of the environment we inhabit. We understand that ensuring healthy, thriving, connected ecosystems is critical to our survival.

Up on the hills and the marginal lands, we are experiencing the effects of climate change. Our fields are constantly wet, often too wet to bring in hay or silage and too wet to leave the stock out on the land. In certain areas, we housed cattle as early as August last year and are now facing a fodder crisis. Slurry tanks are overflowing and the land is too wet to spread it out. Flood and storm damage are now regular complaints. Dry days for maintenance work on flocks or the land are few and far between. We could go on.

The EPA in its 2016 report, Ireland’s Environment – An Assessment, states that responding effectively to climate change is both urgent and long term. Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to reduce vulnerability to the adverse impacts of climate change, while producing quality food to feed a growing global population, are the tasks ahead. It is clear that both our sector and the State have urgent and pressing needs. The job at hand is how we dovetail these needs to benefit all.

Past experience reveals that when the State has EU directive or compliance needs that can only be met by our lands, they meet them at our expense. Most recent examples are the land designations in the form of special areas of conservation, SACs, and special protected areas, SPAs. These designations are designed to help protect Europe’s most valuable and threatened species and habitats - 600 sites over 14% of the country’s land. The State gets the best of Natura sites, and we get a list of 39 actions requiring consent. These actions include the requirement of planning permission for fencing, costing some farmers in excess of €4,000 for engineering fees and Natura impact studies. Should a farmer wish to sell, they have to notify prospective buyers that the land is a designated site and this burden is added to their property folio? The only outcome here is devaluation of property. This situation is unacceptable. We have called for a payment of €150 per hectare per year to be paid to landowners with designated lands, a small price for Europe and the State to pay farmers to curtail their farming enterprises and to help protect these sites.

A few important points should be noted. Our current income - our grants - is still based on livestock. We are rewarded, or not, for stock numbers and land use practices from 20 years ago. Although the basic payment scheme, BPS, does not require stocking densities, the areas of natural constraints, ANC, payments do, as do GLAS payments, if one entered it via commonages. Any destocking or demise of the suckler herd will have a detrimental effect on those vital payments. Going forward will require a fundamental change of values. Our hill and Natura land is no longer worthless, unproductive and marginal. It is of high nature value. It provides many opportunities to meet critical eco-services and market commodities, for example: clean water; clean meat, with a low carbon footprint, reared on the best of mixed diets in a manner that manages grazing in the uplands ecosystems; carbon credits through sequestration of peatlands; low intensity permanent pasture or woodlands; renewable energy solutions; pollinator corridors; and biodiversity habitats among others.

These opportunities belong to the farming sector and they must be paid for. Since the 1990s hill and Natura farmers have worked tirelessly to bring their farmland habitats to a favourable conservation status. Blanket bog peatlands must be sustainably grazed to retain eligibility. It is necessary that we stop playing the farm and environmental agenda against each other. This issue is going to require everyone to work together. It is time to find areas we can build on rather than pursue issues that divide us. We are calling for a table of stakeholders - farmers, local community and business interests, and environmentalists among others - to be independently chaired, to start developing another vision for our rural future.

We would rather take a little time and plant quality forests and agro-forestry with long lasting benefits for all involved than chase after quick money at the expense of the farmer, the land and the rural areas. Other options exist, ones which are better for us, our land, environment and communities. We can also look to neighbours, for example, Scotland and Norway which face the same issues we do. They are already implementing solutions with success.

It is time for the Government and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to start talking to farmers and rural communities, not to talk at us. If they need us and our land to meet their needs or the needs of the day, especially issues relating to climate change challenges, food security, renewable energy commitments and carbon sequestration then they should talk to us. They should not decide our future for us, especially when those decisions involve planting 470,000 ha of our country under Sitka spruce by 2050.

With those points guiding us, we submit the following: When examining the needs that determine the afforestation programme it becomes clear that there are other ways to meet those needs. We believe that there are smarter ways to achieve our renewable energy commitments. Solar power is an affordable and instant solution compared to, with luck, a 30-year crop of trees to burn. We recommend that the Government pursues solar farms. Many farmers would be more than willing to mix solar panels and livestock in the same field. Wind farms are also an alternative. However, communities need to be brought on board such projects and to benefit from them.

Trees are being grown to sequester carbon to meet our greenhouse gas, GHG, emission targets. We acknowledge climate change as a side effect of global warming and we understand that we have to do what is needed to fix the problem. That includes planting trees but that does not include planting Sitka spruce, especially on green bogs or peatland. Peatland, wetland, forests and low intensive grassland farming sequester carbon. Peatland and green bog in good condition can sequester four or more times the amount of carbon than spruce. The most effective use of such land is thus to leave it as peat or bog land and pay the farmer for the sequestration services rendered. The better condition the farmer keeps the ecosystem in, the higher the payment.

We call for an end to all monoculture plantations, especially those of the invasive species, Sitka spruce. We call for clear felling to be banned and replaced with continuous cover practices. For the majority of Irish timber exports, the UK is the only viable market and the uncertainty around the outcome of Brexit places considerable strain on this eggs-in-one-basket approach to the wood product sector.

Mr. Joe Condon:

We call on the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to formulate a strategic plan that addresses climate and environmental needs, part of which will include measures that yield high EU environmental added value and which will be rewarded on an output basis. Such measures would include the following. The conservation of permanent pasture; the conservation of peatlands and wetlands; the maintenance and improvement of Natura and commonage farmland habitats; maintaining agriculture in areas with natural constraints; biodiversity-enhancing cattle grazing schemes, especially on the uplands where it is acknowledged that livestock manage the diverse plant life; a burning and land management scheme that reduces the risk of wildfires and their spread; no imposition of collective action clauses to gain access to schemes; and no collective agreement for commonage farmers to gain entry to any scheme.

Farmers need to be rewarded fairly for the delivery of ecosystem services as they relate to soil, water, biodiversity, air quality, climate action, and the provision of landscape amenities for the public good.

Where it can be demonstrated that farming systems or practices provide carbon sinks, the carbon credit should be owned by the farmer. Measures for generational renewal should include a young farmers and early retirement schemes

We recommend that further research be carried out to quantify the carbon sequestration properties of extensive farming on commonage and Natura farmland. Research should also be carried out to quantify the carbon sequestration properties of broadleaf trees compared to conifers and the age at which sequestration is most effective. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine should be the clearing house in trading carbon between different farming systems.

Due to increased rainfall, more flexibility is required at member state level to set slurry spreading dates that take local conditions and weather patterns into account because the one-size-fits-all EU regulation all is unworkable. It is becoming impossible to spread slurry in the current manner.

Bio-digesters and anaerobic digestion are essential, and the solution for the uplands in that regard is on a co-operative scale. Such digesters would be developed in partnership with local communities or smart villages, providing them with gas and heat. The particulate could be returned to farmlands as fertiliser.

Farmers with natural environmental constraints should be rewarded for the enhancement and preservation of such natural resources and the production from those farms as regards sheepmeat, beef, and cottage industries should be marketed to premium-paying customers.

The Oireachtas must bring forward legislation to make agricultural land a special asset of the State, as already determined by the EU Commission. Non-farmers should not be given the same grant rate or premium payment as farmers.

There is a closed period for cutting hedgerows to protect habitat loss for biodiversity but foresters can clear fell during this closed time, completely removing habitats. Farmers in existing forestry contracts should not be forced to replant. Should they wish to do so, they should be given the option of putting in mixed broadleaf and be paid annually for sequestration and other services rendered. There should be no carbon tax on agriculture.

I thank the members for their time.

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

I thank Mr. Condon for his very detailed presentation. We will now take questions from members.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I recently attended an information meeting in Donegal organised by the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association, INHFA, at which a lady from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland presented research on the best way to farm sheep on hills and comply with European regulations. It was of great interest that very little research has been carried out on this area by Teagasc for some time. I discussed that with several people and I would like the opinions of the witnesses on the feedback I received in that regard. The view of those to whom I spoke was that, in spite of all the rhetoric, there is an increasing sense that the powers that be in the State wish to focus on intensive farming rather than support typical small family farms, in particular hill farmers and those working on difficult land. Approximately 75% of a typical farmer's income comes from single farm payments, which are critical to their survival. In other words, the view I received is that a lot of nonsense is being spoken in this regard. There is much rhetoric about climate change and so on but, in reality, the research and resources of the State and the way that CAP payments are disbursed is geared toward intensive farming and profit-making at the higher level, to the detriment of small farms. To back that up, recent research demonstrated that over the past 20 years 42% of family farms in the west of Ireland have ceased operation. Other evidence recently given to the committee indicated that, in spite of all the talk of getting young farmers involved, one in three farmers under the age of 44 has gone from the land in the past ten years in Ireland. The witnesses can probably discern my viewpoint on the matter. The way agriculture is being dealt with across the State is failing geographically and in terms of targets.

I would like some honest feedback from the witnesses in that regard. Do they perceive that to be the case?

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. I took a couple of notes on the presentation by Meat Industry Ireland. I would like a little more information on its representatives' views regarding the future of grassland in terms of carbon sinks. Mr. Carroll stated research is ongoing in that regard. At what level is that research?

Mr. Carroll also mentioned that the Irish model is very different from that in other countries, in particular as regards the intensive feed systems utilised in many countries, especially for beef production, whereby cattle are housed all the time and are never free roaming or free feeding such that they go out and find their own food. It is a very intensive model of beef production. I sometimes fear that such a system is becoming more prevalent in Ireland, which would be detrimental to the image we portray whereby we market our beef as being from free-roaming, grass-fed animals from family farms and so on, which is where consumers from any country would like to think their meat comes. Such production model is generally the case in Ireland but I fear that we are moving in another direction. Is the intensive feed system more profitable? I assume that is the reason for its usage. I direct that question to the representatives of Meat Industry Ireland. We must realise that money talks and that things will move in the direction of where the most profit can be made, regardless of what we want to do in terms of carbon sinks and so on. Ultimately, the farmer or producer will opt for what pays best.

In regard to the grain and tillage sectors, Mr. Carter mentioned that the tillage sector is an excellent carbon sink and, in particular, that sugar beet, with its long growing season, is one of the best carbon sequestration models, and is probably better in that regard than forestry and many other things. What is the source for that? I ask Mr. Carter to provide further information in that regard.

Both the Irish Grain Growers Group and the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association mentioned anaerobic digestion. A problem for many farmers is that they have too much slurry. Many farmers in my area received grants to build slurry tanks and are now storing slurry but have nowhere to put it because it has rained from August until now. What is to be done in that regard? If climate change is to lead to more frequent wet periods, that will have a detrimental effect on what can be done with the slurry that has been stored. One option is to consider anaerobic digestion and what can be achieved in that regard.

Has much research been carried out on the bovine digestive system and its resultant emissions? A report was published last year regarding a type of seaweed that could be fed to animals to assist in that regard. I assume there was some chemical make-up within the seaweed that had an effect on the bovine digestive system and I wonder whether any further research has been done into isolating that and its potential usage. It is possible that it was an airy-fairy report but it seemed accurate to some extent.

Is there any research being conducted to see if science can solve some of these problems?

The grain growers mentioned hemp. I knew a farmer in County Roscommon who grew hemp exceptionally well on very marginal land. Of course, he needed a licence to grow it because of its particular leaf and the problem that one could be growing something else in the middle of it. As everyone knows, there is no drug involved in hemp, but as it has the same leaf, the danger is that people could be producing cannabis in the middle of it. Could there be some alteration - I would not say a genetic modification - in order that it would have a different colour or something else to make it easier to obtain a licence? It offers a real option because the issue of plastics will really come at us in the next couple of years and we will need to find alternative models of packaging. Hemp has been around for centuries and could be used again.

The representatives of the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association mentioned forestry, of which I am very much aware given where I come from. I spoke to the Minister of State, Deputy Andrew Doyle, about agroforestry and farming among trees. He told me that it was under review in the hope something could be done. The existing grants are very poor and nobody takes them up. Given the amount of work involved in fencing, etc., they are useless. If there was a proper grant available, a farm producing cattle, sheep or whatever else would have the economic advantage of the timber, as well as the carbon sink of the forest.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegates for their presentations. Mr. Carroll represents the meat industry and, interestingly, all of his presentation had to do with the farm. I know that the farming sector makes a major input into the meat industry, but I would like to hear what the meat industry is doing to address the issue of climate change. Farmers' representatives frequently appear before the committee. Only a couple of sentences in Mr. Carroll's presentation were about the meat industry. It would be interesting to tease out the issue further. What are the meat factories doing to address the issue of climate change? Are they using renewable energy resources and improving their production methods? Farmers are doing what they are doing and being forced to do so. What are the meat factories doing to reduce the level of carbon emissions?

A few weeks ago we heard a presentation on Origin Green. I note that some meat producers, Origin Green companies, were prosecuted for causing pollution. What is the value of Origin Green if that is the case and if producers are not contributing to improvements in their environmental performance?

In his presentation Mr. Carroll said Ireland's meet industry was the fifth most carbon-efficient in Europe, as if that was good. I do not think it is great because it puts the meat industry where it should be. I could be wrong and would like Mr. Carroll to expand somewhat on what he said and perhaps show me where I might be wrong. I do not thing it is that big a marketing tool. We are probably one of the major agricultural producers in Europe. Where do we stand compared with France and other agricultural producers?

What are the factories doing on carbon reduction? We have already heard what the farmers are doing.

Mr. Carter outlined some very positive things that can be done by both organisations to reduce carbon. I ask him to give examples of where they are being done at the moment? Are people waiting for a grant before doing so? Are there places we could go to see it? In the committee, we often hear of people waiting for money before anything is done, which can be a bit of a difficulty. Are these things taking place on the ground now and can we see it actually working?

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Given the challenges we face with climate change, at the moment we seem to be sticking our heads in the sand and hoping the issue will go away. Quotas have been imposed in Holland where cow numbers have had to be reduced because of the phosphorus production. One of our sectors has been expanding very rapidly, as has been outlined in the tillage presentation. I wish to acknowledge three excellent presentations today. Our tillage acreage has dropped very significantly in recent years.

We have the most sustainable dairy production in Europe. Mr. Carroll outlined that our beef production is the fifth most sustainable in Europe. Irrespective of how sustainable we are, we will be a long way from meeting our climate change targets. We need to focus on what Ireland can do to ensure we can farm sustainably and commercially. One of the most interesting points made by the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association was the need for the hill lands to be left in their natural state. They provide a far greater carbon sink in that state than as forestry. We sometimes feel that forestry will solve the issues of us. I recently read a frightening statistic on the amount of forestry needed for one extra cow. Forestry will definitely not solve the issue for us.

The challenges we need to face are coming down the track very quickly. Historically we have been known for steer beef production. Can steer beef production be sustainable under climate change? Given the age at which cattle are slaughtered, is it an efficient use of resources? Can steer beef production meet the challenges coming rapidly down the track?

Mr. Carter made an excellent presentation on tillage. Our tillage acreage has dropped very significantly because of issues with profitability. I fully agree with Mr. Carter that increased acreage is needed to meet our targets. The issue we need to address is how to arrest that slide. A few months ago, this committee published a report on the tillage sector. Diverse forms of food production will be a key part of meeting our targets. At the moment all the signals are that we are heading in one direction with one sector expanding rapidly. Unfortunately, that will bring increased challenges.

Commissioner Hogan is quoted as saying that the targets under Food Wise 2025 need to be abandoned now in the context of climate change.

That is startling for the economy and the country. We have to face up to these issues and try to find solutions. They are not going to go away. The Dutch have already had restrictions imposed on them. This week we were granted a derogation for another four years. It was given full status by the Commission. However, four years will pass quickly. Will we be able to regain that status in four years time? As maintaining the status quowill not serve in the future, we have to make changes and adapt our production methods. All of the increased production is in one rapidly expanding sector; all of the others are shrinking. We will have a discussion in the Dáil tomorrow on the suckler cow herd, beef production and the challenges posed by climate change. A lot of hard questions have to be asked. What we are doing now will not be okay in five years' time. Therefore, we have to adapt.

The presentations were excellent. However, every sector is putting forward what it considers are the solutions for its viability, rather than what we all need to do to beat the challenges posed by climate change. Last year was a wet one and we saw the challenges that brought in storing slurry and the huge investment made in that regard. This year extra conditions have been brought forward for slurry spreading, with more and more coming down the tracks. We need to get ahead of the game and make sure that when the European Union looks at the issues of climate change and sustainable food production, we will be top of the class. Is steer beef production sustainable? How do we arrest the decrease in the acreage used for tillage? I refer also to the recognition of hill farmers' land as a carbon sink and how we can stop land abandonment on hills. We need to be to serious about the challenges facing us. They will come at us at a rate of knots. For a long period we had quotas in dairying. A different quota is coming at us fast.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I echo what Deputy Jackie Cahill said about the three presentations. They were excellent and went into great detail. I want to touch on a couple of points on which I would like our guests to come back.

On the challenge of meeting our climate change targets in the context of the upcoming CAP, I am interested in hearing about the negotiations and how the CAP will be structured. Given the challenges posed by climate change, what changes need to be made to how the CAP will be structured the next time? What do the delegates believe needs to happen?

The Grain Growers Association seemed to be broaching the idea of a carbon tax. I ask for that idea to be fleshed out. Will it be a significant part of the debate? It is something the Citizens' Assembly recommended, but it is not something with which I agree. However, I am interested in hearing the individual delegates' perspectives.

On being an carbon-efficient producer of meat, I am interested in the views of Meat Industry Ireland, in particular. We are currently fifth in meat production but first in dairying. I am interested in the delegates' perspectives on what other countries might be doing better, those that are ahead of us in the beef production table. What are others doing from which we could learn to bring us up the table? I noted in MII's presentation that more carbon is emitted in British beef production than here. What are the differences between our system and the British system of production? Why is it much less carbon efficient?

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wanted to push the issue of carbon tax a little more, but Deputy Charlie McConalogue has just mentioned it.

I thank the three organisations for their presentations. The purpose of the meeting is to contribute to a report the committee is producing. What one thing would the three groups like to see come out of the report?

How much intergroup communication is there? Every group is doing great work on behalf of its own sector or organisation and the figures are good. As highlighted in all three presentations, if we had an industrial environment, our percentage of agricultural output would not be near as high. The first presentation quoted figures that indicated while our level of emissions from agriculture was 30%, in England, with twice the output, it was only 8%. We are all aware of that figure which camouflages the situation and puts the emphasis back on agriculture. This is a global issue and agriculture is only a certain part of it. We hear that 70% of the grain Irish cattle are eating is imported from Russia by boat, train and lorry. While it might not be under the umbrella of agriculture, it is adding to global greenhouse emissions. I heard somebody compare it to a corner forward on a team scoring 1-2. The team loses but the scorer is happy. It has to be a team game in agriculture and all other sectors. Can there be communication between the sectors to eliminate that one example of 70% of the grain being imported when it could be grown here. It is not affecting the figures for agriculture, but if we do look at the bigger picture, the hauling of that grain from Russia, or wherever else, is having a major effect on the overall figures. I know that the grain growers cannot force the meat sector to start using Irish grain. However, could there be some incentive from one to the other. Has that issue being looked at? Have the groups talked collectively to see where improvements could be made that would be beneficial to each sector? As I asked, if the delegates could write a line in the report we are formulating, what would be the one thing they think would have the greatest impact to help the sectors while improving the environment?

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

Is Senator Michelle Mulherin okay for the moment?

Michelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, I am.

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

Before I go back to our guests, from a research point of view, representatives of Teagasc will be before the committee on 6 March to discuss this topic. That may or may not help the discussion.

Mr. Carroll referred to the fact that the committee had visited a processing plant before Christmas. It was a very useful exercise. I also had the opportunity to visit a trial farm in my part of the country which I found very useful. Perhaps we might be able to receive some more information on it? Perhaps the delegates might know about it.

Deputy Jackie Cahill made a point about increasing numbers in the dairy sector and how we could take advantage to alleviate the difficulties coming down the line. I refer to extra numbers, moving out stock quicker and producing an animal that is easy to calve, yet fleshy from the processing point of view. How can that be done genetically and what are the technologies involved? Teagasc is involved, as is the Irish Cattle Breeders Federation. That is the way to go and it could be very useful. Perhaps that issue might be teased out also.

We will start with the Grain Growers Group.

Mr. Pat Cleary:

Let me answer Deputy Martin Kenny's questions first. We thank Deputies for their questions because they are drilling right down into the difficulties we see.

A question was asked about sugar beet and from where we obtained our information on the greenhouse gas statistics. We used the Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee of the House of Commons, EFRA. We also looked at the EU statistics for arable crops which were most beneficial to greenhouse gas filtration.

The other element is the long growing season.

Mr. Carter referred to it. For those who are not familiar with the crop, there is a long growing season. A lot is grown in Ireland for feed. It is not just a commercial sugar crop. It has large roots and leaves. It is planted in March and grows until harvest time, which is normally from the end of October or November until January. As well as being a carbon filter, it provides significant habitat cover for wildlife in the autumn and summer.

Another significant element is linked to the beef and dairy sector. The capacity of the crop to absorb nutrients and synthetic or organic fertiliser is four times that of any other cereal crop. In terms of the arable sector in general, people are talking about the additional difficulties this winter given the excess of slurry and the lack of capacity for storage. The arable sector has great capacity, but there needs to be a lot of engagement between the arable areas of the country and areas where there are significant slurry storage capacity problems.

Deputy Cahill referred to the sustainability of our sector. On-farm diversification is important. We need to examine anaerobic digestion because it has the capacity to utilise extra slurry or surplus sugar beet or maize as a source of material to generate gas. Some in the transport sector are already converting HGVs to biogas. On-farm anaerobic digestion needs to be examined and resourced more. There is a major issue in terms of implementation and planning for on-farm anaerobic digestion. There is significant capacity in that area. It will not happen if we all sit in our own sectors. There needs to be joined-up thinking, as Deputy Cahill said.

There is capacity in our sector to produce first generation biofuels. An EU directive which was implemented ten years ago was never enacted. I know some people who set up companies to produce pure plant oil from oilseed rape plants. The refit tariff was pulled and many went out of business as a result. It is the simplest form of conversion. Oilseed rape is crushed and pure plant oil can be blended to use with diesel. It is a very simple process. The cake which is left can be used as a high-protein animal feed. That is one simple on-farm mechanism to add value to a product we produce. It is a solution which we have ignored over the past few years. Many biofuels are being produced from sugar beet and wheat on the Continent. A significant amount of wheat is going into ethanol in France. We are not talking about using our cereal crop for the biofuels sector because we need to produce feed for our livestock. There is capacity to expand. In order to survive in our sector we need diversification. The more we can do on-farm to add value to any product we produce, the more sustainable we will be in the future.

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

Does Mr. Carter want to address the very topical issue of carbon tax?

Mr. Clive Carter:

I will get to that. I will start with Deputy McLoughlin, who said he feels the CAP is geared towards productive farms. The original CAP was established to ensure food security for Europe and was linked to the food produced. The more productive farms received larger payments. When the system changed and subsidies were no longer linked to food production, the more productive farms still received more. Those productive farms have been receiving a bigger cut than less productive farmers.

I am a small farmer and may not be the most productive, but productive farmers are still receiving a bigger cut and are producing more for their CAP payments. While hill and sheep farmers in Donegal feel their sector is being underfunded in terms of research, they are not the only ones. Most other sectors feel they are being underfunded in Teagasc, or it is underfunded in most sectors which are not grass or dairy-based. A small part of Teagasc is devoted to tillage and it does incredible work given its resources. We would love to see that sector expanded. Every other sector, such as beef, would love to see its sector promoted a bit more.

Deputy Kenny mentioned hemp. It was an example of what could be done. I thought about it yesterday and decided to mention it. I do not know much about it, but it was an example of how we can solve a few problems. I understand it was produced in Ireland 100 years ago and still is.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It still is, by about ten people.

Mr. Clive Carter:

I do not know whether the male or female plant is the bad one. It is an example of what can be done.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Carter should be very careful.

Mr. Clive Carter:

There are plants and crops which can be used that are not food-based, but their by-products can be used as food in animal feed. Deputy Pringle asked where things are being done. I am doing some small things on my farm. I am not in GLAS. I am trying to install reed beds and plant trees on my own whenever I can. I am not in receipt of any finance for that. These are my projects and I try to do as much as possible. Most farmers are the same. The vast majority of tillage farmers have a few acres of grass which are not as intensively managed as a productive dairy or beef farm. They may have a single cut of hay. They have more biodiversity, with longer flowering periods, more flowers and old hay meadows.

Deputy Cahill referred to only one sector expanding. He is supporting what we have said. Perhaps there has been too much of a focus on dairy farming in the past. We may possibly face trouble in the future in terms of environmental issues. We need to promote our food grade export crops and quantify the carbon sequestration and mitigation of the tillage sector. We would be very keen to get Bord Bia and Origin Green on board to prove these facts for us.

Deputy Daly mentioned the carbon tax. We would not support a carbon tax, but the Citizens' Assembly recommended a carbon tax on agriculture. We would not like to see any further tax on farmers. The sector has enough problems as it is. If such a tax were introduced, would a tax credit be available for people who are carbon positive? If one thing could be done now to-----

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

A silver bullet.

Mr. Clive Carter:

I will not say a silver bullet. Perhaps a bronze bullet for the moment. The protein payment has been very beneficial for farmers. We hope to reduce the amount of protein being imported and there are benefits for the environment. Beans are a great crop and we would love an extended and expanded protein payment. It is a win-win for all farmers, including beef, dairy and arable farmers. Peas and beans sequester carbon and have no nitrogen input and a lower nitrogen input in the following crop. We would like to expand that into oilseed rape and other crops.

Mr. Cormac Healy:

I will try to go through the questions as they were asked. Senator Mac Lochlainn asked questions about intensive farms versus smaller farms. The starting point is to look at some of the numbers from a meat sector perspective. We process cattle annually from more than 60,000 farmers. We process meat from 25,000 sheep producers and 60,000 beef farmers. There are large numbers of small operations as can be seen from those figures. In the beef sector, the average number of animals processed per farm is 30. There is still a huge network of small farms. I am not necessarily qualified to answer the Senator's question but schemes such as the beef data and genomics programme, which we talk about a lot and are very supportive of, are open to all. Many of the schemes that are part of CAP pillar 1 and particularly pillar 2 are open to farms of all sizes. That is all I could say on that. The Senator gave figures on farm reductions. Generational renewal remains a big challenge for agriculture and farming in many countries.

Deputy Kenny mentioned the grassland and the carbon sink. The Chairman said representatives from Teagasc will appear before the committee. I ask the committee to spend a bit of time on the issue. We are not qualified to speak on it but I will comment on a number of things that we understand to be the case. Permanent grassland sequesters carbon. It is a huge sink of carbon but is not fully accounted for in the overall accounting system globally or at European or Irish level. As a result, the livestock sectors in Ireland, Britain and elsewhere get a bad rap. There is not total agreement globally on how to count it. Climate change science is a new science and there is not agreement. We need to point it out if we feel there is a positive contribution that is not being recorded.

I will mention another aspect of the work we are trying to do. The only thing one gets credit for is further enhancements that are made, which is the same as in the forestry sector. Much of our existing forestry is not counted but new plantings are counted. The project we are trying to establish with Teagasc concerns outlining best practice on permanent grassland. Some areas are more suited to further stocking and some are more suited to reduced stocking and perhaps some planting. The issue is how to maximise the sequestration from the permanent grassland we have. It is not our field of expertise.

In terms of a move to intensive feeding, we are still very much a grass-based production system. Our advantage in beef and dairy production and other livestock pursuits is that we can grow grass. I am not sure if there has been intensification; I do not necessarily agree with that point. One of the things that happens is that in winter there is a certain amount of housing required but in the final months of an animal's life there are production systems that will finish them off faster. One key factor from a meat sector perspective in terms of climate change is the age of slaughter; finishing animals earlier has an impact. The fact that Irish beef and lamb is grass-based is still a huge marketing attribute.

On the bovine digestive system, research on seaweed was published a number of months ago but we would need to harvest all the seaweed in Ireland, England and the world to produce a counterbalance.

However, Teagasc has done a great deal of work. There are cows with little containers strapped to their backs measuring everything to do with the digestive system. All of this comes back to the fact that we are discussing biological processes, not changing a car engine or moving to electric. We will not have electric cows. We are stuck with a biological system, so the mitigation potential is limited.

This brings me to Deputy Pringle's point about us focusing on the farm level. It is the raw material that the processing industry works on, but that is purely because the farm level accounts for the largest proportion of greenhouse gas emission volumes. It is recognised that more than 90% of emissions are at farm level. Hence, we have to address those.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about the 10%?

Mr. Cormac Healy:

Absolutely. That is the reason for the focus. We will never solve the challenge unless we work with farm organisations and farmers to confront it. It is a challenge for livestock production. Of the volume associated with agriculture, 90% occurs at farm level, so that is where we have to tackle the issue. At processing plant level------

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The processors have direct control of the 10%.

Mr. Cormac Healy:

Yes. All of the major processors are part of Origin Green. The kinds of initiatives that they are involved in at plant level include water usage reduction during processing and heat-to-energy recovery systems, many of which are in place. We use energy and have cooling systems, but we are also using hot water. Another initiative is waste reduction. These are some of the targets and we would be happy to forward a complete list of the particular initiatives to the committee.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what the processors have direct control over. Farmers have control over farming, but the processor industry has direct control over what it does.

Mr. Cormac Healy:

Absolutely, but we need to work with farmer suppliers. If there is a challenge for agriculture, there is a challenge for the processing system.

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

They are connected.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will Mr. Healy comment on the value of Origin Green? Some processors can be prosecuted by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, but still carry an Origin Green label. What value has it? Is it just a marketing tool?

Mr. Cormac Healy:

No. Were Bord Bia before the committee, it would go through Origin Green. Origin Green tries to pull together all of the bits that the whole Irish agrifood sector is working on to improve its sustainability and its environmental position, be that at farm level through the quality assurance scheme and the measurement of carbon or at processor level in terms of what processors are doing.

Regarding someone being prosecuted under an EPA licence or the like, issues have arisen - unfortunately, it will probably happen again - where plants have exceeded a limit. Some of the more recent issues have related to noise pollution. Unfortunately, many of our plants are close to built-up areas and towns. It is important that this be clear. Recently, the EPA published a priority list of sites, and some of the agrifood companies that appeared on it did so over noise or odour issues, not necessarily something being released into water systems or the like.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Mr. Cormac Healy:

There is no question that there have been issues, but all of our plants operate under EPA licences and controls. Things go wrong sometimes.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Should that have an impact on the Origin Green label?

Mr. Cormac Healy:

If there is a persistent issue, yes. The monitoring of Origin Green would be acting before that anyway.

Those who do not make an effort or are constantly in violation of environmental requirements should be excluded from Origin Green. However, it is also important to note that things can go wrong in a facility licensed by the Environmental Protection Agency. One-off events can occur and must be addressed, but they do not mean the company in question is not committed to the Origin Green programme.

Deputy Jackie Cahill raised specific issues about steer beef production. We are not in favour of moving to young bulls and are not necessarily moving in that direction. Steer and heifer beef production has been the unique selling point of Irish beef and that will continue to the case. Nevertheless, it is possible to produce steer beef at much younger ages than is the case. Part of the challenge facing us in making progress in dealing with climate change and reducing the level of greenhouse gas emissions will be to improve the uptake of the production systems Teagasc is demonstrating on the demonstration farms to which the Chairman referred. We cannot walk away from this issue without a fight. There are ways to produce off-grass at a younger age that would have an impact in reducing the carbon footprint. That is the bottom line and if we can work to that end, we will have done something to improve our position.

On Deputy Charlie McConalogue's question about the future structure and design of the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, I am sure the farm organisations have much more definitive views on the issue that we do. If we were to express a view, we would like the CAP to be channelled towards schemes that provide support for farmers such as, for example, the beef data and genomics programme. I understand a significant amount of funding provided under the scheme comes from national sources. Not only do the schemes provide direct support but they are also delivering progress. The beef data and genomics programme, for example, has been in place for only three years or thereabouts, during which time calving intervals have declined by 12 days. In addition, the number of calves in the suckler cow herd has increased from 79 per 100 to 85 per 100. That figure needs to increase to 95 per 100, the ratio in the dairy sector. Progress is being made under the schemes and the CAP could help in that regard. In that context, wider budgetary issues arise, but we do not need to discuss them in detail today.

Senator Paul Daly referred to the discussion taking place between the various sectors involved. There is no benefit to agriculture or the food industry if one sector plays off or tries to outdo another. One of the interesting points, to which Mr. Cleary alluded, is that Food Wise 2025 included a specific recommendation, if that is not too strong a word to use, that the pig and grain sectors dovetail more on account of the land available for slurry, as well as for grain. In the poultry sector Manor Farm is taking some new initiatives, including building new housing facilities on tillage farms. That area needs to be examined further.

Senator Paul Daly also referred to a silver bullet, but there is none. If he were to push us on what we would like to see included, we need, first, to ensure our base is right, by which I mean the point from which we measure ourselves. That brings me back to the issue of soil sequestration of Irish grassland. We need to get this right. Is it being accounted for appropriately in the various figures that have been used? We must also ask how we can enhance soil sequestration. This can be done through programmes such as the beef data and genomics programme as it uses breeding and the best of science to try to improve the picture.

I wished to make a point about demonstration farms, but I cannot recall the question I was asked.

There are a number of such farms. The one to which Deputy Pringle referred focuses on how best to get beef from the dairy herd given the expansion in the dairy herd. There is a demonstration farm in the west and Dawn Meats has one focused on suckler beef production, on which it is working jointly with McDonalds and Teagasc. Again, it is trying to do this in real farm conditions as opposed to a laboratory or research farm conditions. These farms must stand on their own two feet. The one members visited last year was a Kepak farm. It is a commercial operation that is trying out the best things in animal health and different production systems. This type of farm is important as we must constantly push to identify what are the best and most efficient production systems.

Deputy Cahill indicated we must face up to climate change. We must also stand up and fight to some extent because agriculture is in the spotlight in terms of climate change and has a role to play in that regard. I understand that, with the exception of New Zealand, Ireland's agriculture sector accounts for the highest percentage of national greenhouse gas emissions. The reason is that we do not have dirty industries such as mining and heavy manufacturing plants. We need to be clear that we must not place an excessive emphasis on agriculture and that we are efficient. I accept that we must also make up more ground. Unfortunately, these are biological processes and we cannot re-engineer cattle. While we can breed and improve, progress is incremental. A significant amount of work is being done, although we still have some way to go.

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

What is Mr. Healy's view on the carbon tax?

Mr. Cormac Healy:

I am certainly not supportive of a carbon tax and I definitely would not support one that would be focused on agriculture. The reason is that the sector has demonstrated that it is taking action in many areas. The Chairman stated we would return to this issue. Beef and agriculture are being bargained away by the European Commission to close a deal with South America. It seems we will be happy to import more product from South America to close a trade deal while, on the other hand, we want farmers and industries here to contract in order to meet climate change requirements. That is a contradiction.

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

We will move on to the work of the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association, which is represented by Ms Murphy and Mr. Condon.

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.

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

Does Mr. Cleary wish to come back in?

Mr. Pat Cleary:

I want to respond to Deputy McConalogue on how we see the CAP structure following the next review. Carbon trading is already taking place globally and carbon credits are being bought. I will provide a specific example. Qantas in Australia bought the rights for 450,000 hectares of cover crops. It is growing mustard as a cover crop. It is using it as a biofuel for its aircraft but the quantity it will produce will be insignificant. What Qantas bought are the rights for the 450,000 hectares for carbon credits so, obviously, trading has already started on the positive side. Do I want to see a carbon tax? Absolutely not. We have enough of penalties.

Senator Paul Daly asked about the silver bullet. This committee did an excellent job on the report on the future of the tillage sector. My silver bullet for our sector is very clear. I would like to see more Irish arable produce being used for feed and food products for Irish domestic consumption.

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

Deputy Eamon Ryan has just arrived. I will let him in. His timing is perfect.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman for letting me in. There has been all sorts of business here today so I was unable to stay for the discussion, but I read with real interest and listened to the presentation from Meat Industry Ireland. I also read the two other presentations. I am very much at one with what the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association said in its presentation. It is the right approach to Irish agriculture and is in tune with what I see happening in or what I hear from the European Commission and indeed Commissioner Hogan when he spoke at Food Wise. The association's broad review of what we need to do not just in farming but also in forestry is particularly useful. I will concentrate on forestry. The association is right in terms of the switch to a completely different mode of forestry, as I read the association's presentation, so that we do not just grow forestry for lumber but see it as a carbon storage system, an aid to biodiversity, a leisure development and helping with our water management. As the association says in its presentation, this is a move away from the system we have at the moment towards continuous cover and using alder, ash, rowan and a range of native species.

I think the association said somewhere else that when we get the value in that carbon sequestration, which will have an increasing value, the value should accrue to the county where the carbon is stored. That is a critical element in the switch to a new form of forestry. Our ambition should be 20,000 ha of that type of forestry so that we are not isolating communities in the likes of Leitrim and elsewhere where there is real public concern at the moment.

If I am reading the food production side of the association's presentation correctly, and I apologise if I am simplifying it, my understanding of where the Commission will go in terms of asking countries to come forward with new approaches to the CAP is that it will be looking for exactly this type of farming, which is more diversified, is all about soil husbandry and goes back in some ways to the old ways where rotational farming and less reliance on single markets was the way to go. If there is a divide in the country in farming between the north and west and the south and east, and there probably is in land terms, it may favour the north and west. I was talking to my colleague beside me and said that this is what we need to do. That is where the help and resources are needed. I very much support the analysis and general approach of the association.

I do not want to be deeply critical of Meat Industry Ireland's presentation but it seemed to be taking the country in a different direction towards a much more intensified reliance on international commodity markets and a much more capital and carbon-intensive agricultural system. We had very interesting discussions with members of the farming and environmental communities. My concern is that we are running the risk, particularly from an EU perspective, of being seen not to play our part in the climate challenge we face. We are a country that is getting a lot of favours with regard to Brexit and corporate tax. My concern is that at some point we are going to be told we are not going to get off on agriculture and land use. That is just my assessment of what I hear in Brussels from the broad stream of the environmental community. I hear that they increasingly talk about us in that way. They talk about us with regard to agriculture the way they talk about Poland with regard to coal. It is of deep concern to this country that our reputation as a green country and an Origin Green producer, which is a valid one, is in fear of becoming really damaged by international sentiment that we are not doing that. I do not believe that continuous assessment of the efficiency of Irish agriculture per kilogramme is a valid argument in response to those European concerns. I listened to Professor John Sweeney, one of our best climate scientists, say that it is the cumulative quantity of carbon that is key, not efficiency. I think we have had an additional 400,000 cattle in the past year or so. Each is equivalent to an SUV on the road in carbon terms. If we keep going in this intensified numbers game, we will run into a climate backlash that will have profound consequences for the marketing of food from this country abroad and indeed our whole trading system.

It is not an attack on Irish agriculture. I agree with what I read in the presentation by the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association. We must move away from a war between the environmental movement and the farming community. It is in both our interests to work together because farmers will be on the front line of our climate response, flood management and biodiversity protection. They are the protectors of our environment. Young farmers are starting to think and experiment that way. The reason I am critical of a reliance on the old system, particularly in the beef and dairy sectors, is because it is not serving farmers. I was startled when I looked at some of the figures yesterday relating to average incomes for Irish farmers compared with those of Danish, Dutch and German farmers. They are getting twice the income so it may be serving the meat industry but I do not think it is serving Irish farming in terms of getting real incomes. I think the Natura approach, which is one I would support, will provide a better future in terms of paying Irish farmers because we will paying them for carbon, biodiversity and flood management as well as paying them for food production.

I think our metric here is not just on carbon.

We cannot just obsess about the carbon. We have to look at the social aspect to this. The other concern I have is about protecting, and keeping to, the old ways. The average age of the Irish farmer is now 55. It is almost impossible for young people, as I understand it, unless they are directly connected to a farm, to get into farming. Sons or daughters of farmers are increasingly not going into farming. They see those figures in terms of income levels and they see it is not as rewarding as it should be. I very much appreciate the chance to add those few thoughts on the basis of what I have read here but I will look back on the video of the meeting. Despite my critical comments, and I do not want to be in any way personally critical about it, I respect the meat industry's right and interest in terms of presenting its case. However, we need to have some forum where the environmental movement sits down with the farming and food industries and works out, as best they can, what interests we have in common. It is about getting young farmers involved, it is about fewer inputs which is more profits for farmers, it is about getting payments for all that new form of forestry and new form of carbon storage and, critically, it is about making sure that money goes to Donegal, Roscommon, Mayo and Leitrim, that quarter of the country, in particular.

I would like to go back to the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association presentation. Professor John Sweeney, our best climate scientist, has said that what we are going to see with climate change is the north and west getting hit with worse weather - unfortunately, with wetter winters and more intense weather events. Friends of mine, farming in Donegal and elsewhere, have told me they have not seen anything like last summer and the last nine months with non-stop rain. The south and east will have different problems, and will probably be drier. We have a common interest in addressing this climate challenge together, but addressing it with a view to social revival, a revival of rural Ireland. A green approach in high quality continuous-cover forestry, in keeping carbon in the ground, including peat, critically, and in flood management is where we can and should go. The food we will sell out of that system and the tourists we will bring in from that system will also help revive rural Ireland.

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

Thank you, Deputy Ryan, for your views. I would not agree with all of them but you are entitled to them.

Generational renewal is a huge issue that is going to affect us all. We had the European Court of Auditors before our committee discussing two reports it produced, one of them on the young farmer and the other on the rural development programme. A startling statistic is that 1,000 farmers a week are leaving farming in Europe. This is not an Irish issue. It is happening throughout Europe. By 2040, which is only 20 years away, there are going to be very few farmers around. It is a huge issue that we have to address. The other issue, which I believe was mentioned in the presentations by some of the groups, is one that is going to come up time and again, especially in view of the CAP negotiations, namely, the active farmer. Who is an active farmer? What is the definition of an "active farmer"? There is a huge issue around that.

I will go to Mr. Condon first.

Mr. Joe Condon:

Most questions have been answered fairly conclusively. On the CAP, I would say that a capping of payments at €65,000, a degressive payment for larger farms and a redistributive payment to medium to smaller farms would possibly answer a lot of the problems relating to land abandonment. On the research issue, I would say that there is serious research required on the effects of designations on farming in these upland areas.

One other point I would like to comment on is our opposition to the carbon tax. I read the transcript from last week's meeting and it is pretty unanimous that there is opposition to it. I would call into question the make-up of the Citizens' Assembly that voted 90% to 10% for a carbon tax on agriculture, when one has a huge chunk of the population, including all the employees in the meat industry, close to 450,000 people involved in farming and processing. For such a proportion of people to vote for it, and for there to be such opposition from the agriculture side, tells me that there is some dissonance in that system.

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

We will hear from the meat industry.

Mr. Cormac Healy:

We have to start somewhere.

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

Thank you Mr. Condon. Mr. Healy is next.

Mr. Cormac Healy:

Deputy Ryan spoke about a dialogue between the environmental sector and the wider agrifood industry and we have no issue with that. Indeed, it would probably help. The point was made that we should not be looking at production on a per kilo basis but on a global basis and that is fine. However, we must then have a discussion about why those people in Europe to whom the Deputy was referring are happily using agriculture as a bargaining chip to close off a deal in South America that will allow more product to be produced in a less environmentally friendly way and shipped across the Atlantic Ocean. Whatever way one wants to measure it, Irish agriculture and particularly livestock, beef, lamb and dairy production, has a strong set of environmental credentials by virtue of our grass based system. Those credentials will stand up anywhere. Let us have that discussion but let us be fair about the way we have it. We never see as much focus on the transport sector, for example, which is the next largest polluter in terms of the rankings. Agriculture is certainly up there and a high contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the Irish context by virtue of the absence of other industries like mining, for example. Transport is the next largest and has increased over the last decade in terms of its emissions but agriculture, as I understand it, has not. Agriculture is trying so let us recognise that and give the sector its place as part of the solution rather than as a villain in the scheme. I would have to question where all of the jobs will come from in terms of alternative sectors. We constantly hear general discussions about jobs and the rural-urban divide. Indeed, plans were announced last week for the future development and direction of the country and whether such development will be in Dublin, Limerick or Waterford. Agriculture and food processing are generating economic activity in many rural areas and I do not hear alternatives to that being suggested and that must be highlighted. It is true that we have to do more and cannot sit back. We are under the spotlight in terms of there being more work to be done in the agricultural sector. There is more work to be done in meat and dairy processing but we must not forget the 120,000 farmers in that sector or the 50,000 direct jobs in food processing, as well as the linked jobs. They are valid economic contributors in every parish and county of Ireland and we cannot ignore them in our overall rush.

I am not sure what favours we are getting in the context of Brexit, as referred to by the Deputy. At Brussels level one will sometimes hear of a focus on Irish agriculture and certainly in the context of dairy expansion it was mentioned. However, some of the dairy expansion in Ireland by global standards was far less than that which took place in other countries within the community. That said, in percentage terms the expansion was very significant. In global terms the UK's increase in milk production was phenomenally greater than Ireland's. Our percentage was high but our overall volume increase was not so high.

Mr. Pat Cleary:

I would like to address Deputy Ryan's references to monocropping. The last CAP compelled any farmer with more than 30 ha to grow three different crops on his or her farm. On our own farm we grow six crops, three of which are break crops. They have all added significantly to our overall output. We are growing beans and peas as high protein feed for livestock and oil seed rape for energy production. I would remind Deputy Ryan that when he was a Minister the Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariff, REFIT, scheme for biofuels was closed which caused a lot of distress to farmers who had invested heavily at the time. Many went out of business as a result of that policy change.

The Chairman spoke about young farmers. I agree with him that they need to be supported. There was a significant amount of help available for them from the national reserve in the past two budgets, but a lack of access to funding at low interest rates for full-time, active young farmers is a very significant factor as it affects continuity. Many young formers are still interested in agriculture and it is a great life. All they want is to make a reasonable living from it in the future.

To answer Deputy Eamon Ryan, our sector has changed significantly in the past ten years. Most arable enterprises in the south east are sustainable in terms of the environment and climate change. We will improve in time; all we need are the right supports.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ireland is about at the average figure or perhaps a little below it, based on price per kilo, for steer beef across Europe, according to the table included in the presentation. We had some meat in France which we thought was not of as high a standard as we would have in Ireland. Most accept that the beef we produce here, on family farms where it is grass fed and cattle roam free, is better. However, the farmer in Ireland only receives the average price. The meat industry should reflect on this. The price of Irish beef on shelves in continental Europe is good, particularly for prime cuts. The farmer is getting a raw deal and should be getting a better price for his or her product.

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

Does Mr. Carroll want to answer that question?

Mr. Cormac Healy:

I will answer it. The average price paid to beef producers - this was the case for most of last year too - was 107% of the EU average. We export 90% of the beef we produce, but in most states there is a domestic premium, with consumers paying a little more for their home product. However, they have an import requirement and in many markets we are coming in as the next supplier. Many years ago the price would have been 90% or 95% of the EU average, whereas now it is above the overall average, which reflects a strong performance. I have never met a farmer who did not believe he or she should get more for his or her produce, but there is also competitive pressure among the various proteins and the price has to be compared to that for pork and chicken.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As we are producing a premium product, we should be getting a premium price. That is the gripe of the farming community.

Mr. Cormac Healy:

I accept that Irish beef is an excellent, premium, grass-based product and a premium is being achieved in many markets, which feeds back into the overall price. When an animal is processed, its constituent parts go to many countries and some attract a premium. The overall return from a market dictates what is paid. The preference is usually for local produce, but we are often the second supplier. That is where the challenge lies.

In many cases, it returns a price which is above the price that prevails in many of those member states. That is a strong performance.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with Deputy Kenny. He has hit the nail on the head. Irish farming has great attributes in that it is largely family farm-based and pasture-based. We are able to keep cattle out for much longer than in other countries. To show that it is not as intensive, I understand that the average Irish dairy cow produces approximately 5,000 litres of milk a year. In Northern Ireland, where it is done differently, it is 8,000 and it is 10,000 in the UK. That lack of an intensified system should mean that, in a market which values that and which wants to know about origin of material, we have a competitive advantage over Brazil and over British and other farms. We risk losing it now because Michael Gove, in the British Government, was saying that that is how it will go, towards really high quality, having a better connection between the consumer and the farmer and certifying that it is sustainable. In those circumstances, the current system where we do not get the premium price and just get the average price shows that something is wrong. I think the way to change that is to nail down our sales marketing as a green sustainable nation with regard to our food. We should go for the premium market. We only represent 1% of global production so we can fit into that, sell it at that price and not do it on the hoof but as a select, targeted marketing exercise. That cannot be done if we are not looking after the environment and we cannot do that, in all conscience, when we are saying as part of Food Wise 2025, that we will increase our agricultural emissions by 11%. Phil Hogan is saying this. He has come over to say that we cannot do that. We cannot in all conscience sell ourselves in that way for a better price if, at the same time, we are increasing our emissions. We have to deal with it in transport, which I spend most of my time on, and in energy. We have to have a 100% reduction in emissions in energy.

Looking at how others have done this, New Zealand has gone ahead of us in the intensification, with a very similar pastureland-based system. They thrashed their country. They got a huge increase in dairy production but they are in a rapid reverse because they realised that it is not sustainable and does not work. It is the same with the Danes. They went with a really intensive capital-based system. The average Danish cow starts life with a €30,000 debt on it. We should not be going that route. We should be going for Irish family farms and higher quality.

I left out the grain suppliers. I had the fortune yesterday to meet a young Irish farmer, Johnny Greene, I think he is called, in Carlow. His grandfather might have founded the Irish Farmers' Association, IFA. It comes from a proud tradition.

Mr. Pat Cleary:

The original IFA.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was there a split early on? There probably was.

Mr. Pat Cleary:

Yes, indeed.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He is running an arable farm now which is the perfect example, in my mind, of mixed farming. There is rotation, and clover and beans to restore carbon. He was saying yesterday that he was starting to grow arable crops without any insecticide and that production goes up.

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

For the Deputy's information, he is part of the biodiversity agriculture soil and management, BASE, farmers' group, which has made a submission to our committee.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is where everyone needs to go, on a large scale. Smart farming and BASE farming is an opportunity. Agro-forestry, protecting biodiversity and carbon management are the green way to go, which will be the future of Irish farming. It is far more secure, it pays better and it fits into our sense of pride. We are right to have pride in our family farm-based system. It provides a really secure future and that is the way we should go. As part of that, we should aim to cut our emissions and not let them rise.

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

To be the balance, much work has been done over recent years, whether in livestock, or the beef data and genomics programme, or the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, which has done a huge amount of work in the last ten to 15 years. The rural environment protection scheme and agri-environment options scheme, AEOS, were before that. All those environmental schemes have made a huge contribution to the dynamics of this. In my opinion, that will continue. I think, with no disrespect to older farmers, that the younger farmers are buying into the principle of these initiatives. Even though we will increase meat production, that does not necessarily mean that we will have thousands more cows. The old line, "better before bigger", is where we are going as opposed to having bigger numbers. We will be more efficient and get more out of the numbers that we have first. That is the point that we must make first.

Mr. Cormac Healy:

It is good to hear Deputy Ryan speak with passion about some of the grass-based production systems that we have. If agriculture even just stood still at the moment as other parts of the economy started to decarbonise, including the transport sector, housing and other industries, our percentage would still be high.

We will remain in the spotlight and that needs to be recognised because food production is a natural, biological process. The ability to mitigate carbon output is limited and yet farmers are trying.

When we talk about our European colleagues, we always have to remember that we are coming from a low production base. The volume involved in our dairy, dairy expansion and the plans that the dairy industry has is a far lower volume than other member states have increased by in the same period. We need to retain perspective. We are a small producer in the global context, and while percentage figures might sometimes look big, the total volume is very small, whether for dairy, meat or other sectors.

Mr. Pat Cleary:

Deputy Cahill is correct in what he is said. Food Wise 2025 will have to be revisited. Many things have changed since it was initiated and it has to be reviewed.

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

Food Wise 2025 was an initiative of the industry. It was all-encompassing, including the farm organisations, processors, producers and all the rest. Everybody came together and produced that. I mentioned the point before at different meetings about looking at it again. Having said that, from a dairy point of view, a target was a 50% increase in production. We are probably well down that road already without having a huge increase in numbers, as I mentioned a few minutes ago. Much can be achieved more efficiently without having to go down the road of a huge increase in numbers.

Mr. Pat Cleary:

There was no Brexit or COP21 at that time.

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

True. Deputy Ryan may speak briefly.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the Chair's flexibility on this. On the efficiency point, I would have to stand up to support Alan Matthews on the tax matter which is, in a sense, about efficiency.

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

I would say the Deputy is on his own.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I might be but I would stand up for the Citizens' Assembly. I think it was a brilliant exercise and I agree with his analysis. If we are not doing that, another proposal that could be followed, if we are to benefit from being more efficient than others, is that we should look, perhaps, at moving agriculture into the European emissions trading scheme, ETS, which would give us a measure of efficiency compared with other producers.

We mention Brazil and that we cannot deal with Brazil because Brazil is not going to handle the issue. The truth is that Brazil will have to do something. The Paris Agreement applies to every country in the world. I do not believe America will stay out of it. It would be a complete pariah if it did. At some stage, it will come back in. Brazil is in it and it has a similar problem with land use emissions. It will have to address the issue in its beef industry. We are not alone in this. On the matter of our size, people say that we are only small. The way that this climate response is going is that it gives everyone an opportunity to take part in the solution, which is a better system.

On the scale, we should cotton on to land use, land-use change and forestry, LULUCF, and carbon sequestration. Even stopping peat production and the big power plants would mean that 5 million tonnes per annum of emissions from peat could be saved almost immediately. Doing the devil and all in grass management, we might get 1 million tonnes of carbon abatement or carbon reduction. This has to be looked at. We have to bring forestry, bogs, land use and agriculture together. It is not the farming sector on its own. It is an integrated issue. I think, above anything else, that we need a national land use plan that goes from the mountaintops to the sea, looks at what we are good at with farming and other areas, and where we really concentrate on biodiversity, natural parkland, forestation, a new type of forestation and what type of farming we do.

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

A previous committee did a very detailed report on land use about three years ago which feeds into what the Deputy is saying.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a pity that the national planning framework, in my mind, did not have an attached land use plan. How can we plan our country if we are not planning what we do with our land? Maybe the committee will put that to the Minister as a simple recommendation from me as a visitor to this committee. I deeply appreciate it.

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

Does anyone want to wrap up?

Mr. Joe Condon:

The active farmer definition was mentioned. It will be landed upon at member state level. We will call upon this committee to recommend strongly to the Government that all farming organisations are consulted prior to any definition being arrived at.

That means every farming organisation would be consulted and perhaps an Oireachtas committee might even be developed.

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

There is an ongoing consultation process throughout the country on the Common Agricultural Policy. There is a roadshow, if I can use that phrase, to nearly every part of the country. Everybody is free to attend, whether as individuals or part of an organisation. I have attended two. There is one main issue - the amount of money involved. It is not about the active farmer or anything else but the amount of money involved, which clearly is very important. The budget is crucial and there will be a major discussion about it. If we have more subsidiarity and give member states more flexibility, it will be a crucial part of the process. However, I take the point which I will convey to the Minister that there should be engagement with all stakeholders when the time comes.

Mr. Philip Carroll:

I have a general comment to make. I missed some of what Deputy Eamon Ryan had to say, but I got the flavour of it towards the end. Everything we have said is about progressing the climate change agenda in a proper way and operating on the basis of sustainability. It is a journey, not something that will happen overnight. The differences between us are not massive and, as has been said, in work together we will solve some of the problems. There is a role for the Government, the industry and farmers - everybody has a part to play.

I am puzzled by the Deputy in talking about premium markets being lost or missed. We are exporting to the best premium market which delivers the best returns, but we are also exporting to a market that has been substantially renationalised. In the case of France and Italy, the markets have a preference for their own products. The value from these markets is greater than that from an Irish product exported to these markets. Notwithstanding that, as Mr. Healy stated, in 2017 the average price paid was 107% of the European Union average. The only market that would have been ahead of us in that price grading over the course of the year was the United Kingdom which is paying a premium price to its own producers. I do not know which premium market the Deputy believes we should be in. This is an industry that exports to 50 markets and we continuously chase access to the premium markets. We are not always at liberty to trade with these countries because we either need trade agreements that are negotiated centrally or we need bilateral agreements on which the Government negotiates on behalf of the industry. It is not as simple as pressing a button and chasing access to a particular market. I do not disagree with the point that if we were to go in with an enhancement of Origin Green and sustainability credentials, it would be a help. We should look at what we are facing in a year's time; we face the loss of a premium market. If it could be replaced, it would be a great day's work.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are not going to starve and will need food. There is a large population on a small island, no matter what way Brexit works out. One of my concerns is that Britain will use the opportunity of being free from the CAP system and to do its own thing to aggressively seek to have a green system. That is what the Minister in question has said he wants. We could, therefore, find ourselves selling at a lower price because in the end the consumer would be willing to pay for it. I am sure the business is not easy.

Addressing climate change is a journey which will take time. We will make mistakes in going backwards and forwards. If we do not set ourselves a target for real carbon reductions rather than increases, we will not be able to trade under an Origin Green brand and obtain a premium price that should apply to Origin Green materials. That is the future. In a world that is cooking and where climate destruction is becoming more evident, we will not be able to trade unless we act in every sector, including transport and energy. We can do it and be very good at it. More than anything else, it could be good for Irish farming if we were to organise it properly.

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

I will leave the last word to Mr. Carter.

Mr. Clive Carter:

I will speak to Deputy Eamon Ryan's comments on cutting production on the intensive farms in the south east and moving money to the north west.

I do not think that is a good idea at all. How would the farmers in the south east survive? That would be cutting their payments and cutting production, moving the money away. We would be advocating for more money to go to productive farmers who are trying to implement better sustainability measures. At the end of the day we have to produce food. We cannot just cut production. The idea of this committee was to get stakeholders involved. My view would be to try to increase or maintain the level of food production in each sector and also try to mitigate these things by trying to improve the emissions from each sector. Cutting production would have a negative effect for the economy and for everyone. We have heard a lot about rural economies and the benefit of agriculture to those economies. We should not try to cut production to effect change in our carbon footprint when we can do it using other technologies and other systems. We in the arable sector have been advocating that being carbon neutral or carbon positive can benefit both worlds. This is something that should be looked upon rather than just cutting production.

I would say also that Meat Industry Ireland have mentioned about the grass-based system, but could there be a benefit to more intensive use of cereal rations? I read a report recently that more intensive rations and more intensive finishing of animals has had a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions due to earlier finishing times. Could this be an area that could be looked at to promote our own feeds?

Reference was made to the origin of food and the origin of meat and dairy. Currently we are importing 60% of our feed imports for animals. How can we guarantee the traceability of Irish produce and label it as fully Irish when 70% of that comprises GMO and imported grains. We should be looking towards producing more of our own feeds for animals. As the Chairman said, in the past ten years all sectors - dairy, arable etc. - have come a long way and made great ground in trying to reduce their carbon footprint and still are. It is a slow road and there is a long way to go.

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

Deputy Cahill, I just want to wrap up now very shortly and we are not going to get into a discussion about transferring funds from east to west today.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have to face up to the challenges of climate change as I have said before, but if we think that the consumer is going to pick up the tab, we are fooling ourselves. Organic farming has shown that food can be produced to the highest standard with low inputs but the consumer will not pay the premium that compensates the farmers for it. If we think that by meeting all of the challenges we are going to face on climate change that the consumer, especially a British consumer, will make up the shortfall, we are fooling ourselves. The British consumer has always looked for cheap food and that will not change. As Mercosur has been mentioned already, the reality is that Mercosur will do a lot of damage to the climate change targets that we are trying to meet here in Europe, and that is the reality of it. We have already conceded to allow 100,00 tonnes extra to come into Europe. We can produce that a lot more carbon efficiently than what South America can do to get it to market in Europe. If we think that the European consumer is going to make up the shortfall for us and all of the extra costs that are going to be imposed on us, we would want to get into the real world.

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

Briefly now, Deputy Ryan, this is your last contribution.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The market is not going to deliver for the Irish farmer. That is clear. That is why we have CAP. CAP is the right approach to support Irish farming. But CAP is now changing and we in the next two years have the chance to change it and we have a flexibility because it is back to the country. The reality is that if one looks at a range of sectors, not just farming, they are not commercial. I am told by commercial foresters that forestry in the south east can be very commercial but is just not commercial in the north-west. It is one of the reasons why if one wants to develop that continuous cover which takes a longer time and has biodiversity and all sorts of other gains, the market will not pay for it and we have to have a CAP system that will. The same would apply for just about every form of agricultural production, particularly for farmers in the north west. The big issue in our national planning framework is to try to avoid that depopulation, particularly in the north west. CAP should involve targeting certain areas.

A friend of mine is a plant geneticist and he always makes a simple point that Ireland's advantage is that we are good at grass.

This is a natural grass-growing environment. Grain is a grass and, while we should not leave land uncovered, we should use grain to feed animals. We might consider feeding grain to human beings and then look for direct connections between high quality arable farming and the consumer, with our neighbours in the United Kingdom. There is a market for it. It would be more efficient than feeding a cow to produce the protein we need. The maths, physics, ener0gy and ethics associated with food production suggest a grain-based diet is what we should go for. We could be really good at it.

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

That is a matter for discussion on another day. I thank our guests for coming before us. This is the second part of a three-part engagement with stakeholders on climate change. We will be producing a report around Easter time. In two weeks' time we will have the final part of the discussion which will consist of two sessions. We will hear from the Environmental Protection Agency in the environmental pillar, a group called Stop Climate Chaos, as well as the Marine Institute. We will also hear from Dairy Industry Ireland, the Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association and Teagasc. We have had a very good discussion, as we had the last day and I am sure we will have the next day. I thank members for their contributions.